Order of Canada Members Urge Canada to Act to Reduce Threat of Nuclear Warfare

Posted on February 22, 2023editor

Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (CNWC) call on the Canadian government to:

1. Urge NATO and its three nuclear weapon state members (US, UK, and France) to commit never to be the first to launch a nuclear attack, and to work toward universalizing that commitment (which China and India have already made); and

2. Encourage the United States and Russia to take all their strategic nuclear weapons off high alert (of the nine states with nuclear weapons, only the US and Russia maintain dangerous high-alert deployments).

We also urge you to publicly acknowledge the current nuclear crisis and call on all states with nuclear arms to honour the norm against nuclear weapons use that has been respected for the 77-years since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Open Letter linked here

 

Paul Meyer: As satellite use grows, geopolitical conflicts could spill into outer space

Posted on February 14, 2023editor

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-as-satellite-use-grows-geopolitical-conflicts-could-spill-into-outer/

Paul Meyer is a former Canadian diplomat, an adjunct professor of international studies at Simon Fraser University and a fellow of the Outer Space Institute. He is past chair of Canadian Pugwash Group. 

We are witnessing an exponential growth in the number of satellites in orbit and the wide array of valuable services they enable. Approximately 5,500 satellites are currently active and tens of thousands more are set to be deployed before the end of the decade, largely through the efforts of the private sector.

Roche: Canada quiet as Ukraine war inches Doomsday Clock closer to midnight

Posted on January 30, 2023editor

With the risk of nuclear weapons being used in the war, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists says the globe has entered ‘a time of unprecedented danger.’

OPINION
BY DOUGLAS ROCHE
The HILL TIMES

EDMONTON—The most shocking thing about moving the Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight—the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been—is that nobody seems very shocked by it. The world has become inured to a looming Armageddon, and that is truly scary.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists launched the clock in 1947 at the beginning of the Cold War, symbolizing how close humanity is to self-annihilation. That year, the hands of the clock were set at seven minutes to midnight, indicating moderate risk. In 1991, the Cold War over and a new era of East-West peaceful relations seemingly beginning, the hands were set back to 17 minutes to midnight.

For the following three decades, the clock shifted steadily forward. For the past three years, it was set at 100 seconds before midnight to signify that humanity faces two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change. “The international security situation is dire,” the Bulletin said, “not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode.

”This year, the clock has been advanced 10 seconds because, with Russia threatening to use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war, we have entered “a time of unprecedented danger.” There is no path to a just peace under the shadow of nuclear weapons, the Bulletin said, adding: find a path to serious peace negotiations in Ukraine. At a minimum, the scientists added, the U.S. must keep the door open to principled engagement with Moscow, reducing the dangerous increase in nuclear risk the war has fostered. “Every second counts.”

I asked Global Affairs Canada for the government’s response to the Bulletin’s urgent plea for action. I received a statement repeating Canada’s condemnation of Russia’s nuclear rhetoric as reckless. “Russia’s actions have shaken the foundations of the international world order.” Canada continues to uphold the Non-Proliferation Treaty and “encourage[s] nuclear risk reduction measures and further steps towards nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.”

In other words, the extreme warning of the Doomsday Clock is just business-as-usual for Canada. There was no Canadian appeal for negotiations to end the Ukraine war, no recognition the Non-Proliferation Treaty is failing its primary duty to negotiate nuclear disarmament, no request to that the U.S. and Russia start talks to renew the soon-to-expire treaty limiting strategic nuclear weapons, and certainly no acceptance of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which bans nuclear weapons outright.

The kind of answer I had hoped for from Canada was actually uttered by Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland: “The Doomsday Clock is sounding an alarm for the whole of humanity. We are on the brink of a precipice. But our leaders are not acting at sufficient speed or scale to secure a peaceful and liveable planet.”

There is no doubt Canada wants to see the Ukraine war end, but the route to that end is seen by the government through the prism of more military hardware. NATO is focused on more tanks for Ukraine instead of a negotiated solution that would produce mutual security for Ukraine and Russia. It is this standard military thinking that the Doomsday Clock is trying to overcome.

But does anybody care? Are people out on the streets protesting against government mismanagement of the planet’s future? Is any politician calling for an emergency summit meeting of the UN Security Council? Has the movement to abolish nuclear weapons suddenly taken on new strength?

Public outrage against the desecration of humanity is blunted. People have become accustomed to warnings from experts that the modernization of nuclear weapons is preparing the way for another Hiroshima. The public stays passive at the dramatic evidence of climate change in the rapidly increasing rate of violent storms. The scenes of millions of desperate refugees displaced by wars and droughts have become all too familiar.

Our society is becoming hardened to tragedy. Even the very real threats of human catastrophe, the outlines of which are being sketched by the scientific community every day, are met with a shrug. Fatalism has set in, a sense that nuclear weapons and climate change, and even the never-ending variants of COVID, are such big problems that they are beyond the ordinary person’s grasp.

Add to this ennui massive distrust in government as the agent of solutions to world crises, and the sense of helplessness merely expands. We should be crying out, imploring action to turn the hands of the Doomsday Clock back from midnight.

I am reminded of the torch singer Peggy Lee’s famous song, “Is That All There Is?” Standing in front of her blues band, Lee wistfully sang of clowns and dancing bears at the circus and then, when it was over, plaintively asked:
Is that all there is?
If that‘s all there is, my friends
Then let’s keep dancing.

******************************************************************

Douglas Roche asked Global Affairs Canada on Jan. 24: “The Doomsday Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight — the closest to global catastrophe it has ever been. What steps is Canada taking to relieve the threat of use of nuclear weapons at this perilous moment?””

Global Affairs Canada replied on Jan. 25: “Canada condemns Russia’s nuclear rhetoric as reckless and unacceptable. Russia’s egregious actions in Ukraine continues to pose serious threats to the safety, security, and safeguards of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities, and contravene international law. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a depositary state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Russia’s actions have shaken the foundations of the international world order. We look forward to working with Japan and our other G7 partners on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation which has been identified as a priority for this year’s meeting. Canada continues to uphold the NPT and work with partners and allies to encourage nuclear risk reduction measures and further steps towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. We also continue to call all military activities near nuclear power plants to cease immediately.  We are engaged with the International Atomic Energy Agency-led monitoring mission.”

******************************************************************

Douglas Roche is a former Canadian Senator and author.

Negotiations Are Not Enough

Posted on December 1, 2022editor

Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C.
Comments to CNANW, November 29, 2022 in Ottawa

Is peace possible in today’s world? Suppose, by some twist of fate, a sudden ceasefire in the Ukraine war occurred without either Ukraine or Russia being declared a winner; and Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons stopped; and Canada actually used its diplomatic machinery to become active in helping both Ukraine and Russia to live with the geopolitical contours agreed at the negotiating table. Would the world then be at peace? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Read the full statement here: Negotiations are Not Enough

“Nuclear Threats and Canada’s Disarmament Diplomacy”

Posted on November 28, 2022editor

Paul Meyer, CIPS/CNWC event,
University of Ottawa, November 28, 2022

Video of event: https://youtu.be/1aFwviz27MY

 

“Nuclear weapons and the existential threat they pose to humanity have assumed a new and disturbing saliency in the last few months. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, accompanied as it is by persistent nuclear “sabre-rattling” and the blatant use of these weapons as instruments of intimidation and coercion has rudely reminded global society that huge arsenals of these weapons of mass destruction remain. But it could be worse.”

Continue reading here: NuclearThreats

Polanyi: We have to believe in a world without war – and science should lead the way

Posted on November 6, 2022editor

We have to believe in a world without war – and science should lead the way

JOHN POLANYI

Published in the Globe and Mail

John Polanyi is a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto who won the 1986 Nobel Prize in chemistry. This piece is adapted from remarks made at Toronto’s Massey College on Nov. 3.

Today, university appointments are reviewed carefully. That was not so much the case in 1956 when the University of Toronto decided to take a chance on me.

The institution was unstinting in its help. Donald LeRoy, then the head of chemistry, deflected his top student, Ken Cashion, in my direction. Harry Welsh – LeRoy’s counterpart in physics – showed me how to align mirrors to collect infrared radiation. This was in response to a suggestion from Gerhard Herzberg, a Canadian who went on to win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, that chemical reactions might emit radiation characteristic of the motions of the reacting atoms.

Space in the chemistry department was tight, but I was offered an empty broom closet in the nearby Wallberg Building. An infrared detector was hooked up to our hydrogen-plus-chlorine reactor. With the gas flows turned on, the detector signalled unmistakable infrared emission. I remember Ken Cashion, a recently ordained priest from St. Michael’s College, pounding on the instrument’s casing and shouting the most extreme expletive he could muster: “Holy crowbar.”

I went in search of other venturesome students, and learned of a student-faculty group opposing the stationing of U.S. nuclear weapons in Canada. I joined them in writing an appeal to prime minister John Diefenbaker that I circulated to my new chemistry colleagues.

Fortunately, they were supportive. Better still, Diefenbaker spent an hour with us in Ottawa. The Globe and Mail, surprised by this eruption of politics in academe, ran our petition on its front page. Public debate ensued. Governments fell. Surprisingly, the weapons ban survived, as it does today.

Then came an invitation from England – signed, magnificently, “The Earl Bertrand Russell” – to participate in a discussion of the nuclear threat, under the sponsorship of the international Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. The meeting was to be held in Moscow in December, 1960. I, the new Canadian, would be my country’s delegate.

I turned to my boss, Vincent Bladen – the University of Toronto’s dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the time – for advice. Should I accept the hospitality of the Kremlin? The question was forwarded on to Ottawa, which replied promptly: “Don’t go.”

An unfazed Bladen came back to me with a plane ticket to Moscow so I would not feel beholden to the Soviet Union. I do remain beholden today – but to U of T.

The meeting marked the beginning of my long association with Pugwash. The conference brought together scientists to debate the level of nuclear armaments needed for deterrence. Stable deterrence, it was thought, could ensure peace.

Today, we are less confident. To work, threats and counterthreats must be real. If they are real, in times of crisis, they may lead to war.

The 1960 Moscow meeting was timely, coming shortly before the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, during which the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war.

Today, I believe only radical actions can save us. We must reshape history. Ours must be an age of abolition; it has already been marked by an end to slavery, and we must soon see an end to female servitude, an end to environmental degradation and, above all, an end to threats of mass destruction.

None of this will occur without a clamour for change.

Science requires us to see the world anew. A guide to doing so came from H.G. Wells in his science-fiction novel, The World Set Free. It was published in 1914, just before the start of the First World War – but in the face of disaster, he saw hope.

The situation resembled that of today. The threat then, as now, derived from science. But Wells saw beyond tanks and machine guns. He had read the record of research then being conducted at McGill University by Ernest Rutherford, and was aware that atoms could break apart. In this finding, he saw the ultimate weapon of war. He named the weapon an “atom bomb.”

Wells believed in the power of discovery. I know some people who have won scientific prizes; these were not only prizes, but “surprises.” U of T’s Marshall McLuhan called attention to surprise in metaphor: “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp,” he punned, “or what’s a meta for?” The etymology of the word “metaphor” is “bearer of meaning.”

Wells was such a bearer. Wars in the future, he predicted, would involve the release of the atom’s destructive power. Rutherford, however, declared this impossible. Remarkably, it was our discipline of chemistry, with its chain reactions leading to explosions, that provided the missing insight: Atomic decay could start an avalanche of energy-release in surrounding matter.

So why did Wells anticipate a “world set free?” Because he believed that a war fought with atoms would be so terrible as to bring an end to war.

Today, the notion of a war to end war is most often viewed as ironic. Few even believe there can be an end to war. But Wells did.

In fact, it took only one more terrible war, the Second World War, to bring about the outlawing of war. This is clearly set out in the defining document of our age: the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, in which the world agreed to make war illegal.

Russia has turned this prohibition on its head, criminalizing opposition to its war in Ukraine. The Russian journalist, Vladimir Kara-Murza, writing from his prison cell, sees his country engaged in a losing “war against truth.”

We scientists are Vladimir Kara-Murza’s natural allies. Our profession of science depends crucially on the defence of truth. The greatest among us, Albert Einstein, dared to challenge the community of science from his position as a stateless patent clerk, and it was the truth that triumphed.

Einstein went on to offer a message for our fractious times: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

This serves as a signpost to Wells’s World Set Free; free, at last, from the scourge of war.

The world doesn’t want another Cuban Missile Crisis

Posted on October 12, 2022Douglas Roche

By DOUGLAS ROCHE | OCTOBER 12, 2022

The possibility of Russia’s use of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war has led to comparisons with the Cuban Missile Crisis 60 years ago this month, in which, for 13 days, humanity stood on the brink of World War III.

The crisis passed because U.S. president John F. Kennedy, below left, and Soviet Union president Nikita Khrushchev, below right, engaged in crisis diplomacy and negotiated a solution to the problem of the Soviets installing nuclear missiles in Cuba.

We are not bereft of key ideas and high-level persons to find creative ways to end the present carnage in Ukraine. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended because John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev took a risk with crisis diplomacy. Can Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin take a similar risk for peace? Canada should push diplomacy, not arms, to end the Ukraine war.

EDMONTON—The possibility of Russia’s use of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war has led to comparisons with the Cuban Missile Crisis 60 years ago this month, in which, for 13 days, humanity stood on the brink of World War III.

The crisis passed because U.S. president John F. Kennedy and Soviet Union president Nikita Khrushchev engaged in crisis diplomacy and negotiated a solution to the problem of the Soviets installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. But negotiations today to end the Ukraine war seem farthest from the minds of the Western leaders and Russian President Vladimir Putin, let alone Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. For Canada’s part, the word “negotiations” does not escape the lips of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly. The G7, which includes Canada, has just signed on for more weapons to be sent to Ukraine.

I am undoubtedly speaking against a headwind when I call for Canada to support the creation of an international commission, composed of eminent figures, to reach beyond the clamour and hubris engaged in by both the West and Russia to deal with the practical realities of the Ukraine war. The essential reality is to stop the war before it escalates into World War III.

The history of the Cuban Missile Crisis should be a guide. Here is what happened in the momentous days, Oct. 16-29, 1962.

The Cuban crisis arose when the U.S. discovered—on the basis of aerial surveillance photos—that the Soviets were installing nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Kennedy imposed a naval quarantine around Cuba to stop Soviet ships carrying nuclear missiles for further installation. But for some of the president’s advisers, that was not enough: they wanted a full-scale invasion or bombing of Cuba. Kennedy feared such action would launch World War III with both Moscow and Washington using nuclear weapons against each other.

Tensions throughout the world ran sky-high in what was quickly recognized as the greatest atomic bomb threat since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On the eighth day of the crisis, UN Secretary-General U Thant sent an urgent message to Khrushchev and Kennedy, appealing for a moratorium to halt further military action. Suddenly, Kennedy saw a way for the Soviets to stop their shipments without looking like they had capitulated to the U.S. He responded to U Thant and asked him to send a second message to Khrushchev, stating that if the Soviets would hold up shipments, the U.S. “would be glad to get into conversations about how the situation could be adjusted.”

U Thant picked up the signal and sent a second message to both leaders, asking Khrushchev to instruct Soviet vessels to stay away from the quarantine area, and asking Kennedy to instruct U.S. vessels to avoid direct confrontation with Soviet ships. To both leaders, he stated: “This would permit discussions of the modalities of a possible agreement which could settle the problem peacefully.”

The crisis ended a few days later when Khrushchev agreed to verifiably remove his missiles from Cuba in return for a U.S. non-invasion pledge. There was also a deal, kept secret at the time, in which Kennedy agreed to de-commission aging U.S. Jupiter missiles from Turkey six months later.

When it was over, the U.S. and Soviet governments sent a letter to U Thant expressing, in diplomatic understatement, “appreciation for your efforts in assisting our governments to avert the serious threat to peace, which recently arose in the Caribbean area.” Kennedy added his own note of praise: “U Thant has put the world deeply in his debt.” Publicly, the Americans took the credit for ending the crisis. U Thant, never a showman, returned to his duties.

Should the 1962 lesson of “crisis diplomacy” be applied today? The answer is yes. And the need is urgent. U.S. President Joe Biden has warned the world could face “Armageddon” if Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon to try to win the war.

Some argue that a comparison of the Ukraine war to the Cuban Missile Crisis is invalid because it’s too late: Russia has already invaded Ukraine causing horrendous suffering; Ukraine has counter-attacked and Russia has responded with more shelling and deaths. The militarists argue that Russia must be defeated; vengeance must be obtained. This mantra has closed the minds of the West to negotiations. But if the war continues— with or without nuclear weapons—it will soon be NATO vs. Russia, and that will indeed become World War III.

Putin’s military doctrine has always been “escalate to de-escalate.” I think he is actually getting ready to negotiate because he now realizes that NATO, the growing military alliance which he saw as a threat to Russian imperialism, is more strongly determined than ever to stop him.

What is there to negotiate? My colleague Ernie Regehr, author of Disarming Conflict: Why Peace Cannot Be Won on the Battlefield, argues that intensified diplomacy “in pursuit of mutually acceptable security arrangements” is in the interests of both Russia and Ukraine.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has called for a high-level “commission for dialogue and peace,” led by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Pope Francis, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

We are not bereft of key ideas and high-level persons to find creative ways to end the present carnage. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended because Kennedy and Khrushchev took a risk with crisis diplomacy. Can Biden and Putin take a similar risk for peace? Canada should push diplomacy, not arms, to end the Ukraine war.

(The Hill Times)

Former Senator Douglas Roche is the author of The Human Right to Peace.

 

Canada needs to give more support to UN’s new Agenda for Peace

Posted on September 22, 2022Douglas Roche

By Douglas Roche |  September 22 2022

Russia won’t stop its aggression. NATO-backed Ukraine won’t cease its counter-offensive. The threat of nuclear conflict is growing. Unspeakable brutalities are discovered every day. Everybody wants to curse the darkness. But there is one candle of hope. UN Secretary General Antonio Gutérres is currently preparing a paper, ‘A New Agenda for Peace,’ which will be published next year as part of the run-up to the UN Summit for the Future in 2024. Give the man credit for at least trying to build an agenda that prevents future wars, writes Douglas Roche.

EDMONTON—If good speeches at the UN—which fill the air this week at the United Nations General Assembly’s annual debate—could save the world, we’d all be in bliss. Unfortunately, good speeches can’t stop the Ukraine war, which has now reached a point of maximum danger for humanity. Russia won’t stop its aggression. NATO-backed Ukraine won’t cease its counter-offensive. The threat of nuclear conflict is growing. Unspeakable brutalities are discovered every day. Everybody wants to curse the darkness. But there is one candle of hope.

Right now, the major powers in the UN Security Council are running over the UN, cynically disregarding their legal obligations to maintain international peace and security. They consider the UN useful in providing humanitarian aid to the victims of conflicts, but have stripped it of its enforcement powers to stop wars.

The institutional breakdown of the UN Security Council, caused by the five permanent members, who selfishly put their own interests ahead of the good of humanity, is a chief reason for the disrespect all institutions are enduring today. The crisis of disrespect for law the world over has led to the present doleful situation in which politicians merely wring their hands at the senseless war started by Russia.

Guterres can’t haul the big powers into court. But he can look into the near future and identify ways to strengthen crisis management and build the conditions for peace. That’s what his “New Agenda for Peace” will address.

This is not the first time such an agenda has been attempted at the UN. In 1992, in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, the UN secretary general at the time, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, published “An Agenda for Peace,” which listed measures for conflict prevention. Boutros-Ghali wanted a $50-million peacekeeping reserve fund, a $50-million humanitarian revolving fund for emergency assistance, and a $1 billion peace endowment fund. He wanted to pay for this through a levy on arms sales and a tax on international air travel (which is dependent on the maintenance of peace). Apparently, he reached too far, for his proposals were sidelined. Some of his ideas, however, gradually found their way into UN peace-building initiatives.

Now, three decades later, the world is truly frightened by the consequences of the latest eruption of war. “I think we are all concerned that if [Putin] is pushed to the edge, he might respond in what you would consider a horrific way, making use of a weapon of mass destruction,” Rose Gottemoeller, NATO‘s former deputy secretary-general, not known as an alarmist, said. Even China’s leader Xi Jinping and India’s prime minister Narenda Modi have signalled their concern at escalating warfare.

But is this concern deep enough to move world leaders to support Guterres’ efforts to develop a new agenda with any teeth in it? The General Assembly is currently considering how far the new document can go beyond merely setting out benchmarks to measure the risks of inter-state warfare. The International Crisis Group, an independent civil society organization working to prevent war, wants Guterres to adopt a broad definition of “strategic risks,” which would not only reduce the nuclear danger but also address the sources of instability in the Global South, such as the proliferation of small arms, inequality, global warming, and the challenges poorer states face in delivering basic services to their citizens.

This is precisely the moment to advance the concept of common security—the idea that nations and populations can only feel safe when their counterparts feel safe. This was first proposed during the Cold war by an international commission headed by Olof Palme, a former Swedish prime minister, who insisted, “International Security must rest on a commitment to joint survival rather than a threat of mutual destruction.” This is not as easy as it sounds.

Common security counters the military doctrine of nuclear deterrence, which all the permanent members of the UN Security Council live by. Nuclear deterrence is responsible for the continued nuclear arms race, the source of so much tension in the world. If the major countries were really serious about building peace, they would negotiate away their nuclear arsenals. They won’t do this, as the recent Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference showed.

Thus Guterres is stymied. He can go only so far in projecting his new agenda. I think he should aim for the support of the middle power countries in challenging the major states’ war policies.

Here Canada has a special role to play in backing Guterres’ efforts. Right now, we’re following NATO’s insistence on Western military dominance. That is not the route to common security. Canada needs to give more support to the UN’s New Agenda for Peace rather than adhering so closely to NATO’s plans to keep fighting the Ukraine war. We need to build hope for peace through new thinking.

Douglas Roche is a former Canadian Senator and author.
The Hill Times  |  Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C.

EN / FR