Paul Meyer is a board member of CPG. He has written an assessment of the first international treaty concluded on AI Governance and the domains of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Originally published in Open Canada.
Category:Publshed views are not necessarily those of CPG.
Meyer: The first international treaty on AI governance – a basis for convergence or dissention?
Regehr/Roche: Canada should invest in diplomacy, instead of spending more on defence
By Ernie Regehr and Douglas Roche
Originally published in The Globe and Mail September 17, 2024
Ernie Regehr was the founding executive director of Project Ploughshares. Douglas Roche was a senator and Canadian ambassador for disarmament. Both a members of Canadian Pugwash Group.
Powerful voices are driving Canada toward meeting NATO’s arbitrary target of spending 2 per cent of GDP for defence, but this singular focus on military expansion is not the path to a secure and peaceful future. Instead, Canada needs to get off the defensive and launch a new initiative for peace – one that boosts diplomacy as the surer route to global security.
Donald Trump, who is on the campaign trail as the Republican nominee for president, has promised to up the ante if he is elected by pressing NATO to reach a new military spending target of 3 per cent of GDP. NATO’s assistant secretary-general for defence policy and planning, Angus Lapsley, was quick to voice his support, calling the 2 per cent target the “floor” and insisting that spending “will have to rise considerably above” it. The U.S.’s annual spending on defence already represents 3.4 per cent of its GDP.
The world is clearly moving to more and more confrontation in international relations. The relentless Ukraine war, the attacks on Israel and the extraordinary toll of human suffering in Gaza, the breakdown of U.S. and Russian arms-control agreements, and China’s growing nuclear arsenal are tilting the world toward chaos and existential threats that have been unseen since the Second World War.
In this new surge of militarism, diplomacy has been pushed aside, at our collective peril. Without robust diplomacy, sharp increases in military spending lead inevitably to mutual escalation and reduced security. The way out of that self-defeating spiral is strategic dialogue, direct engagement with adversaries, and arms control – in other words, diplomacy.
Canada needs to stop apologizing for its supposedly meagre military efforts and launch an offensive campaign with like-minded countries to put teeth into peace diplomacy and the United Nations’ New Agenda for Peace.
Ottawa should act on two fronts. First, it must debunk the myth that Canada doesn’t carry its weight in military matters. It is already NATO’s seventh-highest military spender by dollar amount, with our $30.5-billion putting us within the top 20 per cent of Alliance military forces. Canada consistently ranks as 15th- to 17th-highest in military spending in the world, well within the top 10 per cent. Canada is also taking timely and sustainable steps to beef up domain awareness and defences through NORAD in the Arctic, and it leads NATO’s multinational battlegroup in Latvia.
Simply repeating the complaint that Canada fails to meet NATO’s 2-per-cent benchmark is not a security strategy. A GDP-linked spending target amounts to a money-making slogan for the defence industry and a formula for perpetually expanding military budgets.
The $10-billion to $15-billion (and counting) of additional annual military spending that it would take to move fully to 2 per cent of GDP, let alone beyond that, would mean starving the already underfunded health, housing, and other social and climate mitigation programs on which Canadians rely.
Second, Canada has the credentials to help invigorate the international system to better understand the underlying drivers of conflict, to renew efforts to build support for more effective collective security responses, and to take meaningful steps to manage emerging risks. In other words, Canada should move to a holistic approach to conflict and peace. Unfortunately, NATO doesn’t do holistic peace.
Last year, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres laid out a comprehensive set of measures for global security in A New Agenda for Peace. He called for the elimination of nuclear weapons, preventative diplomacy to head off wars, more support for the Sustainable Development Goals to address the underlying causes of violence and insecurity, the reinforcement of climate action, and expanded peacebuilding efforts.
Mr. Guterres’s proposed approach is the right one, but he can’t be heard amid today’s clamour for more military spending. For Canada to move beyond the simplistic 2-per-cent formula would require vision and initiative from its political, military, and diplomatic leaders. Instead of playing catch-up in NATO, which is already spending 10 times more than Russia on defence, Canada should advance security by boosting diplomacy, peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts. That is what the world needs – not more arms.
Canada has a history of sparking creative initiatives, including the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, the International Criminal Court, and the Responsibility to Protect pledge. We can summon that creativity again, but only if we refuse to be intimidated by myopic demands by NATO and the U.S. for ever more military spending.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-should-invest-in-diplomacy-instead-of-spending-more-on-defence/
Walter Dorn: Here’s Why Ukraine Should Seek Peace
Published in the New York Times, June 14, 2024
By A. Walter Dorn
Dr. Dorn is a professor of defense studies at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ontario, and the Canadian Forces College in Toronto. He is also a board member of Canadian Pugwash Group.
After more than two years of death and destruction, neither side in the war in Ukraine appears close to victory: Russia will not achieve its imperial conquest of Ukraine, and Ukraine will most certainly not be able to regain control of all the territory occupied by Russia. Sooner or later, both sides will have to agree to a cease-fire and come up with a peace agreement.
That is a welcome prospect. An accord will not only reduce the killing, suffering and enormous cost of the war but will also, in the long run, make Ukraine stronger and better able to defend itself and its democracy. Crucially, it will reduce the chance of a dangerous escalation.
Many in the West argue that making concessions to Russia for a peace agreement would amount to appeasing an aggressor and only encourage further attacks. But it is not appeasement. Ending the war will allow Ukraine to rearm and integrate further into Europe and the West, actually increasing deterrence. Russia has already failed to achieve its initial war aims and will need to make significant concessions of its own as part of any agreement.
The peace conference in Switzerland this weekend, convened by Ukraine to muster diplomatic support for its cause, can provide a much needed opportunity to examine whether an accord is reasonable and achievable. Russia has expressedwillingness to negotiate, though it has not been invited to the conference because Ukraine suspects that Russia will just use the meeting for show. But the host, Switzerland, envisages that Russia will be at future conferences.
No one will know how peace negotiations will fare unless the process is started. When compared with a never-ending war that is swallowing lives and resources at an alarming rate, even an imperfect settlement would be better. So, what could Ukraine reasonably hope to achieve and what kind of concessions would it have to make?
Ukraine has pledged never to cede territory. This is supported by international law that forbids the seizure of territory by force, and Ukraine should not surrender its lawful claim to its land. But to secure a lasting cease-fire, it may need to recognize that Russia has control, though not sovereignty, over portions of four Ukrainian regions and Crimea — and halt its quest to seize back occupied areas by force.
Admittedly, this would be a difficult and painful concession and should be conditional on Russia not launching any major attacks. If Russia remains peaceful, Ukraine may need to wait for a better opportunity to reclaim all its territory, like the one Germany found in 1989 when the fall of the Berlin Wall opened the way for reunification.
As part of a peace agreement, Ukraine may also have to pause its NATO application and promise not to join for a number of years, say five to 10. This is made easier because NATO members are still far from united on allowing a nation at war into the alliance, especially given fears that membership could result in a NATO war with nuclear-armed Russia. Still, it would be a major concession.
But Ukraine can still sign bilateral treaties with individual NATO members for security support — something it has already started to do, for example, with France, Germany and Britain. Future security guarantees will need to include strong provisions for supplying weapons and intelligence to Ukraine, and help to prevent cyberattacks. That said, Ukraine’s allies would probably not be allowed to place military bases on its soil.
Any peace agreement would also need strong measures to prevent another outbreak of conflict. This could involve a demilitarized zone and mutual notifications of exercises and military maneuvers. Early warning, continuous monitoring and transparency are much easier in the age of satellite surveillance, especially of the type currently provided by the United States. International inspections and a United Nations buffer force, made up of troops from non-NATO countries, would also make future incursions harder to launch.
Admittedly, an armistice or peace agreement would give Russia time to regroup and rearm its forces. But Ukraine could do likewise. It would also mean that all prisoners of war could be returned, not just in the small groups being negotiated by the parties so far. War crimes investigations and trials would proceed, however.
Most important is that a tentative peace, even if interrupted by violations, would finally give the people of Ukraine time to rebuild their lives and their country. Millions of refugees could return home and start to repopulate the depleted country. The United States could sponsor a reconstruction effort much like the Marshall Plan. Europe could lead a rebuilding and integration effort. Peace would make it easier for Ukraine to join the European Union.
There are other benefits, too. Ukraine would continue its fight against corruption, having already put a halt to the dominant role of Ukrainian oligarchs. Democratic life could resume after the end of martial law. Ultimately, successful rebuilding will demonstrate to Russians a better alternative to the dictatorship they are under. That could be Ukraine’s and the West’s greatest victory.
To make a peace deal more acceptable to Russia, it could be offered sanctions relief, contingent on compliance with the agreement. Russia could then trade its oil and gas at market prices, though Western countries could institute mechanisms for the immediate reimposition — the so-called snapback — of sanctions if needed. Russia would regain access to its withheld gold and foreign currency reserves in the West.
Violations of any future agreement can be expected, of course, but the level of violence would still be far less than the current war. And if President Vladimir Putin of Russia does escalate to full war, Ukraine will be better able to respond. Importantly, Mr. Putin has now learned a hard lesson that invading Ukraine is not an easy task and taking over the country appears impossible. In the interim, Ukraine’s allies should maintain a steady flow of arms and increase diplomatic and economic support to strengthen the country’s position at a future bargaining table.
Since Ukraine and Russia will continue to be neighbors for decades and centuries to come, the countries must come to some mutual arrangements for peaceful resolution of disputes. And if the current killing goes on for years before a settlement is reached, people will wonder why so many people had to die first. The best way to honor those killed in war is to secure a sustainable peace so that others need not make the same sacrifice.
Roche/Rauf: How Canada Can Regain Leadership in Nuclear Disarmament
Re: Grave crisis in global nuclear arms control and disarmament: Recommendations for Canadian Action
Linked below is the paper entitled, “How Canada Can Regain Leadership in Nuclear Disarmament,” authored by former Senator Douglas Roche, O.C. and Tariq Rauf, former head of Verification and Security at the International Atomic Energy Agency, and published by the four leading nuclear disarmament organizations in Canada:
Canadian Pugwash Group
Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention
Project Ploughshares
This paper is intended to further Canadian government action in response to the grave crisis in global nuclear arms control and disarmament.
Roche/Rauf: How Canada Can Regain Leadership in Nuclear Disarmament
Collins: Geoengineering versus Natural Climate Solutions
By Robin Collins. Published in Peace Magazine April – June 2024
Many climate researchers now believe keeping our planet below the IPCC warming “limit” is impossible. The Copernicus Climate Change Service has just reported the first 12-month period in which average global surface temperature exceeded the pre-industrial average by 1.5° C. Some climatic “tipping points” – melting of Arctic ice, massive releases of natural methane, irreversible biodiversity damage – appear shockingly close. The situation is dire. Priority now requires innovative interventions and adaptation, not just preventive measures. And as many will argue, ‘net zero’ will now have a limited impact and be insufficient; climate restoration is required for our survival.
To read the full article: here.
Meyer: Space systems are too important to leave unprotected against cyber attack
Canada has not designated space systems as part of the nation’s critical infrastructure, even though allies Australia, France, and the United Kingdom have done so.
Canada has not designated space systems as part of the nation’s critical infrastructure, even though allies Australia, France, and the United Kingdom have done so.
While it may seem a cliché to say we live in rapidly changing times, this is especially true for our use of outer space. In the span of three years, we have seen a fourfold increase in orbiting satellites to over 9,000 active units. These numbers will continue to grow exponentially as “mega constellations” with tens of thousands of satellites are currently in the pipeline for launch. These satellites provide a wide array of services from broadband internet connectivity to remote sensing to the provision of positioning, navigation, and timing signals on which our societies have become increasingly dependent. It is not hyperbole to say that a “day without space” would be ruinous for national and global well-being.
In addition to the natural hazards satellites face in the challenging operating environment of outer space there are also man-made threats. These have become more prominent as geopolitical tensions have led to antagonism among space powers, and the development of anti-satellite weapons and other so-called “counter space capabilities.”
An attack vector of particular concern is that via cyber means. All elements of satellites—from the ground stations that control their movements to the on-board systems—are potentially vulnerable to cyber attack. A recent demonstration of such an attack was the Russian cyber operation against the Viasat telecommunications system that coincided with their invasion of Ukraine, and which seriously disrupted that country’s communication links (as well as those of neighbouring states).
In defending against malicious cyber activity, governments have tended to focus on damage and disruption to their terrestrial systems. The cyber security incidents that have become all too common and which attract the most attention are those directed against government or corporate entities. Whether perpetrated by states or criminals, these damaging attacks impact all categories of victims. In the face of this assault, the government is moving to enhance the nation’s cyber defences. A key legislative vehicle to upgrade Canada’s cyber resiliency is contained in the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, part of Bill C-26, currently under scrutiny in the House of Commons.
The draft legislation aims to enhance cyber security for a selected number of “vital services and vital systems” deemed critically important for national security or public safety. The legislation makes the establishment of a cyber security program mandatory, and requires reporting of cyber security incidents. These measures would help enhance cyber resiliency in the six areas designated as “vital services and vital systems.” These areas overlap to some degree with Canada’s 10 designated areas of “critical infrastructure.” Efforts to enhance our cyber defensive posture in areas of crucial importance are to be commended. However, conspicuous in its absence from these “vital services and vital systems” is the space dimension, the satellites enabling the functioning of many of these crucial systems.
To ensure that the nation’s space systems can benefit from the legislation, coverage should be extended to all space systems engaged in the delivery of these vital services.
Canada has not designated space systems as constituting part of the nation’s critical infrastructure, although several allies such as Australia, France, and the United Kingdom have done so. At present there is a bill in the United States Congress that would designate space as the “critical infrastructure.” There are divided views in the American space industry as to the desirability of having a new regulatory regime apply. The United States has already issued guidance—through the administration’s Space Policy Directive #5—specifically directing a robust cyber defence posture for all space systems. It has also established a government-private sector joint working group on “Space Systems Critical Infrastructure” overseen by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Whether through expanded legislation or focused collaboration between governmental cyber security authorities and the space industry, it is imperative that action is taken to ensure that the highest standards of cyber defence are applied throughout Canada’s space sector. At a time of increasingly sophisticated and potent cyber attacks, we cannot afford to treat our space systems as if they were somehow out of reach of malevolent actors.
Paul Meyer is adjunct professor of international studies at Simon Fraser University, and a fellow of the Outer Space Institute.
The Hill Times
Regehr: Military Footprints in the Arctic
The report, Military Footprints in the Arctic, identifies 69 continuously staffed Arctic military sites in the five states with Arctic Ocean coastlines and discusses the challenges of reducing strategic tensions and recovering diplomacy.
As Canada’s first northern indigenous Governor General, Mary Simon has reminded all Arctic states there is a need “to figure out how [they] can continue working together when a terrible war is going on [which is] contradictory to the rules-based international order.”
By Ernie Regehr, O.C.
Senior Fellow in Arctic Security and Defence,
The Simons Foundation Canada
with Kelsey Gallagher
Researcher,
Project Ploughshares
March 2024
Roche: Trudeau may not be able to fend off NATO’s ceaseless demands for more money
The booming voices of the militarists claiming peace can only be won through more arms carry a lot of weight.
OPINION | BY DOUGLAS ROCHE | March 4, 2024
EDMONTON—You don’t need a crystal ball to predict that the Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence, to be held March 7-8 at the Chateau Laurier, will launch a massive campaign to get the Trudeau government to commit to a date by which it will devote two per cent of GDP to NATO. The Conference on Defence Associations, the conference’s sponsor—heavily financed by the defence industry—is rolling out one high-level speaker after another to demand that Ottawa get in line with the new mantra that Canada is headed for the scrapyards unless we dramatically boost military spending.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should hold to his stand of fending off NATO’s ceaseless demands for more money, but he may not be able to. The booming voices of the militarists, both inside and outside government, claiming peace can only be won through more arms, carry a lot of weight. Those who argue—as United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres does—that the world desperately needs a return to the peace-building principles of the UN Charter rather than more military spending, cannot be heard in today’s clamour.
“NATO and the world is watching what Canada is doing,” U.S. ambassador to Canada David Cohen proclaimed on the CBC. The U.S. intimidation tactics are in overdrive. This from the country whose $886-billion annual defence budget is larger than that of the next 10 countries combined.
While castigating Canada for staying at 1.38 per cent of GDP, the ambassador conveniently forgot to mention that, in volume terms, Canada is already the 13th-largest military spender in the world, and the sixth largest in NATO. The government plans to spend $553-billion over the next 20 years to buy new weapons systems like fighter jets, armed drones, and warships. But the militarists say this is not enough. NATO cares not about the chronic underfunding of domestic health and housing programs, strained beyond capacity by the annual intake of half a million immigrants a year.
The two per cent target is a great fraud perpetrated on the public by the military-industrial complex, which drives American policy, which, in turn, drives NATO. Peggy Mason, policy adviser to then-prime minister Joe Clark and now the head of the Rideau Institute, says, “It is absurd to peg military spending to a percentage of economic activity, extrapolated into the future. We need to base our funding on our assessment of the threats to security that Canada faces and our determination of the best means, including non-military means, to address them.”
Trudeau deserves credit for at least questioning NATO’s militaristic thinking that puts the welfare of defence contractors ahead of the financial needs of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, a 15-year multi-billion-dollar program to ensure the well-being of the most vulnerable people, and which is itself a prime contribution to global security. So far, Canada has contributed $35.5-billion to the SDGs. I have not observed NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg—or the U.S. ambassador—thanking Canada for that.
NATO’s two per cent intonation is taking over political thought because the world—which, after the end of the Cold War, started moving from the old culture of war to a new culture of peace—is in a state of severe disruption. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars have so far produced a state of paralysis in international diplomacy. Those who argue for negotiations to bring about a just peace are shouted down, and aspirations for global cooperation in the name of common security are brushed aside.
The tribal instincts of warfare have been resurrected, in which military might is glorified as the only solution to dictators and autocrats who are springing up on a wave of right-wing populism, which is itself a reaction to the failure of the international system created after the Second World War to build enduring and productive centres of peace. In other words, Western nations have put their faith in NATO’s arms stretch instead of the UN’s diplomatic outreach.
Of course, oppression must be stopped, but feeding the arms merchants is not the way. This has only led to global deadlock. In this new time of world upheaval, NATO should be working with the UN peacebuilding systems, which attempt to implement integrated strategies to end conflict and build conditions for peace.
To look for a larger way out of war is not to appease Russian President Vladimir Putin, who must be condemned for his invasion, or to close our eyes to the killing tactics employed by both the Hamas and Israel, but to recognize that humanity is calling out for survival.
At the core of the two-per-cent argument is the plain truth: NATO’s constant aggrandizement, burgeoning from the original 12 members to 32—which now virtually surround Russia—is a violation of the promises made after the end of the Cold War that NATO would expand “not one inch.” A bigger NATO has undermined the UN’s political and legal authority.
Then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau, Justin’s father, told me personally that NATO’s obsolete policies were one of the biggest thorns he’d had to endure. He at least pushed back. But NATO bullying never stops.
The present Prime Minister Trudeau faces the same system of outmoded thought. There are millions of Canadians who want him to stand up against it.
Former Senator Douglas Roche’s latest book is Keep Hope Alive: Essays for a War-free World.
The Hill Times
Meyer: The Russians are Coming! The threat of space based weapons is no longer a dark fantasy
“Any nuclear detonation in space would also violate the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty which confined nuclear weapon testing to underground locations only. These prohibitions reflected the realization by the Soviet Union and the United States, at that point the leading space powers, that any nuclear detonation in outer space would have devastating effects on everyone’s spacecraft.
“While positioning a nuclear weapon in orbit is unlikely, a troubling development that has been occurring over the past few years has been a resumption of testing destructive anti-satellite weapons (ASATs). These so-called kinetic weapons are launched by missiles with guidance systems able to direct them on a collision course with the target satellite. China was the first to employ such a direct-ascent ASAT in 2007, followed by the US in 2008, India in 2019 and most recently Russia in November 2021.”
Read the full essay in Open Canada: https://opencanada.org/the-russians-are-coming/
Meyer: A lost opportunity for ‘pragmatic diplomacy’
Canada has flunked an early test by failing to attend as an observer a major meeting of states party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons last week.
Unless you have been living on an ice sheet in Antarctica for the last couple of years, you will be aware of a major deterioration of the international security environment. The initiation of aggressive war against a sovereign state, coercive threats to use nuclear weapons, and the dismantlement of existing arms control agreements that imposed some basic level of restraint on nuclear weapon states have all contributed to a “strategic instability” unknown since the heights of the Cold War. A recent Ipsos poll had 86 per cent of the Canadians surveyed believing that the world has become more dangerous.
If Canada is going to do more than merely lament this turn of events it will need to pursue an active diplomacy. Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly sounded a welcome note in an Oct. 30 speech in which she promised a “pragmatic diplomacy” that would recognize the imperative to engage not only with the like-minded, but also crucially those with whom we disagree. In the global arena, progress is not going to be possible unless states reach out to those with differing views and values in the interest of finding common ground.
Regrettably, Canada has flunked an early test for “pragmatic diplomacy” in failing to attend as an observer a major meeting of states party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) during the week of Nov. 27 to Dec. 1 at the United Nations in New York. This treaty, which was concluded in July 2017 and entered into force in January 2021, currently has 93 signatories and 69 ratified parties. The TPNW came about out of frustration with the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament as stipulated under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which, since 1970, has been the principal agreement governing global nuclear affairs with 190 states parties.
The TPNW sets a higher standard for nuclear disarmament than the NPT, prohibiting as it does the possession of nuclear weapons as well as the use or threat of use of these weapons of mass destruction. Importantly, all the states supporting the TPNW are also parties to the NPT, and view the two treaties as complementary. Others, namely the states possessing nuclear weapons and their allies, have opposed the TPNW in light of its explicit stigmatization of nuclear weapons and its challenge to policies of nuclear deterrence that essentially threaten the use of nuclear weapons in certain unspecified contingencies.
A disagreement amongst NPT parties over the best way to fulfil the treaty’s common obligation on nuclear disarmament should not in itself be an intractable problem, but it has been made worse by the hostility shown by Canada and many allies to the TPNW and its adherents. Already, when the TPNW was being negotiated at the UN, Canada and most other NATO allies boycotted the meetings under the direction of the United States. Upon the TPNW’s adoption, NATO indulged in specious criticism of the treaty to the effect that it was somehow incompatible with the NPT. Once the TPNW had become international law and its first meeting of states parties was held in Vienna in June 2022, states not party to the TPNW were invited to attend this meeting as observers. Despite their non-adherence to the TPNW, several U.S. allies participated in this meeting in an observer capacity (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Australia). They recognized the desirability of engaging TPNW supporters in the common interest of strengthening the NPT at a time when the global non-proliferation and disarmament regime was under increasing stress.
There are diplomatic consequences for Canada once again being a “no-show” at the second meeting of TPNW parties. If we are ever going to have any prospect of strengthening the existing legal framework for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament when it is under assault from several quarters, we need to engage and not shun other NPT states simply because we differ over the perceived value of the TPNW. Pretending that the TPNW doesn’t exist and its adherents not worthy of engaging with is unbefitting of a country that has long seen itself as a bridge-builder in the international system. It is one thing to propose a “pragmatic diplomacy,” it is another to practice it consistently.
Paul Meyer is adjunct professor of international studies at Simon Fraser University, and a director of the Canadian Pugwash Group. A former career diplomat in Canada’s foreign service, he served as ambassador and permanent representative to the UN and the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva (2003-2007).
Published in The Hill Times