Collins: Book Reviews of COPOUT and Nuclear is Not the Solution

Posted on June 1, 2025editor

Robin Collins is a member of Canadian Pugwash Group
Publiahed in Canadian Field-Naturalist journal July-Sept 2024

Download review here:
https://www.canadianfieldnaturalist.ca/index.php/cfn/article/view/3525

COPOUT: How Governments Have Failed the People on Climate—an Insider’s View of Climate Change Conferences, from Paris to Dubai By Nick Breeze. 2024. Gemini Books. 240 pages, 22.99 CAD, Paper.

Nuclear is Not the Solution: the Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change By M.V. Ramana. 2024. Verso Books. 272 pages, 39.95 CAD, Hardcover, 11.99 CAD, E-book.

In two recent books addressing responses to climate change, readers learn about the unwieldly international policy process as well as technological options, and in particular nuclear energy, that may or may not effectively mitigate the global crisis.

A COP, or Conference of the Parties, is an annual United Nations meeting on climate change with official and unofficial representatives from countries around the world. Author Nick Breeze attended eight COPs, beginning with the Paris Agreement event at COP 21 in 2015 where 196 governments agreed on a baseline limit of 1.5o C global temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. His book, COPOUT, reviews the progress of those conferences; from COP to COP, we detect a growing malaise, as emissions increase faster than mitigation. An early focus on planting trees and carbon capture draw-down technologies was also missing the mark.

In Nuclear is Not the Solution, M.V. Ramana makes four core arguments against nuclear power: High cost and slow build time, weapons proliferation risk, contamination risk, and the spent fuel disposal problem. Early in the book, he says: “Although climate change scares me, I am even more scared of a future with more nuclear plants.”  Read: full article here

Roche: Carney should reject Trump’s Star Wars production

Posted on May 25, 2025editor

Canada’s possible participation in the Americans’ Golden Dome would overturn decades of resistance to southern neighbour’s often extraordinary missile plans.

Opinion | BY DOUGLAS ROCHE | May 24, 2025 THE HILL TIMES

EDMONTON—Two former Canadian prime ministers, Brian Mulroney and Paul Martin, rejected Canadian participation in “Star Wars,” the United States’ Ballistic Missile Defence program decades ago, but the newly arrived Mark Carney appears ready to embrace the updated U.S. missile defence system now known as Golden Dome.

“We are conscious that we have an ability, if we so choose, to complete the Golden Dome with investments and partnership, and it’s something that we are looking at,” the prime minister said during a press conference in West Block on May 21. He added that these are “military decisions” the government will evaluate accordingly.

With that statement, Carney overturned decades of Canadian resistance to “Star Wars,” a 40-year-old fantasy pushed forward by then-U.S. president Ronald Reagan that incoming missiles could be blown out of the sky before they landed. At that time, Canada upheld the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, based on the principle that defence systems against missiles only stimulate new offensive nuclear arms developments, thus setting off an unending nuclear arms race. In short, uncurbed technology makes peace impossible.

In the American quest for never-ending technological superiority, then-U.S. president George Bush in 2002 abrogated the ABM, and “Star Wars” was given new life. It has morphed into the Golden Dome, a next-generation missile defence shield costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and trumpeted by the erratic U.S. President Donald Trump. Canada’s share of this payment is unknown, but it will certainly be in the billions of dollars—money that will be diverted from needed economic and social development programs at home and abroad.

Why is Carney heading down this road?

Does he really believe that Canada is threatened by Russia, North Korea, and China, as he said in his May 21 press conference, and that the government must “create protection for our cities”? Where is the evidence that the threat is real and the Golden Dome will work in protecting cities that are scattered 7,700 kilometres apart? Canada is already involved in NORAD, the binational military command established by Canada and the U.S. in 1958 to provide aerospace warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning for North America. Moving from NORAD to the Golden Dome is a quantum leap that anticipates space wars and ever more armaments to fight future wars.

For Carney to blandly assert that Canada joining the Golden Dome would make our country safer is—to put it gently—a perplexity. The statement demeans the vaunted high intelligence he has shown so far in the economic arena. The very man who advanced UN principles of human security in his book, Value(s), has abruptly blown past the integrated agenda for peace that the UN (for which he was an adviser) has advocated for many years.

I ask again: What is Carney really doing here? Can he really be caving in to military thinking—which Brian Mulroney and Paul Martin bravely refused to do? Or has he found a way to reach two per cent of GDP for Canada’s military spending and thus satisfy his critics? Has he decided to appease Trump by further integrating North American defence so that he will be freer to juggle Canada’s economic relationships? Who knows. And what are we to make of his inscrutable description of our new relationship with the U.S.: “Co-operation if necessary, but not necessarily co-operation.” This is leadership?

By giving credence to missile defence instead of coming out strongly for arms control measures, Carney is clearly heading down the path already carved out by the military-industrial complex. Canadians have a right to expect their prime minister to work to solve the problems of war, not join in them.

It is deeply disturbing that political thinking at the highest level in this country takes for granted that a Golden Dome is a technological development that must inevitably be seized. The mantra is: stronger defences. The voice of those saying that missile defence systems (under whatever name) are inherently wrong because they provoke the development of new offensive nuclear arms systems can scarcely be heard.

There has been a detrimental mentality shift in the world. Far from receding as we thought would  happen with the end of the Cold War, the prospect of war in its different guises has been normalized. It is as though humanity cannot make the transition from a culture of war to a culture of peace. International law is crippled, the UN belittled. World leaders are giving in to the frustrations which they themselves have created.

In the election of the Carney government, Canada has entered a new moment. But will the government rise to the challenge of proclaiming international law as the basis for policies in arms control and disarmament or will we sink into geographical expediency? I, for one, thought Carney would choose wisely.

Former Senator Douglas Roche’s latest book is Keep Hope Alive: Essays for a War-free World (Amazon).

The Hill Times

Jones: Canada and the Golden Dome: Can We Still Thread the Missile Defence Needle?

Posted on May 25, 2025editor

This article was originally published in Policy journal.
Prof. Peter Jones and Policy: Canadian Politics and Public Policy  have kindly allowed us to repost this commentary here.


Donald Trump unveils proposed Golden Dome missile defence system, May 20, 2025/WH image

By Peter Jones

May 25, 2025

President Trump’s determination to build the so-called “Golden Dome” missile defence system raises fundamental questions for Canada. Should we participate or not? What consequences will a decision, either way, have for existing Canada-US defence relations, most notably NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence Command)? What consequences will it raise for Prime Minister Mark Carney’s stated desire to diversify away from our asymmetrical relationship with the US? These are not small issues.

Lost in the public discussion, thus far, is a nuanced appreciation of two facts: first, the Golden Dome is far from a certainty (indeed, detailed plans as to how it will work do not seem to exist yet, ditto for some of the technologies that will be crucial to its success.); and second, “participation” in this venture can take many forms.

Logically speaking, full participation would imply that Canadian military personnel would serve in the command and control of whatever system is eventually built, and we would share in the extraordinary costs of building and running it. But there may be more limited options. The way the issue was dealt with the last time it came up is instructive.

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the US decided to build a limited missile defence system. Bush wanted Canada to participate. Ultimately, Prime Minister Paul Martin decided not to, for a variety of political reasons. This decision raised issues. Canada very much wanted NORAD, the binational command that provides early warning and tracking of aerospace threats to North America, to continue. NORAD provides Canada with coverage of its territory at a fraction of the cost it would take us to do this by ourselves.

Significantly, NORAD implicitly achieves a measure of US recognition of our sovereignty in the North, for aerospace defence purposes at least, by establishing that the US NORAD presence there is part of a treaty-level arrangement that defines the territory as Canadian. This does not entirely solve the sovereignty problem, but it is better than nothing.

By opting out of participation in the Martin era, we faced a situation whereby the US would simply go its own way to develop the threat warning and tracking system on which that missile defence would rely. This would have eventually rendered NORAD obsolete. What we did in the Bush-Martin era was to square the circle.

We declined to participate in the missile defence system, but we agreed that NORAD should provide its early warning and threat tracking component. In effect, NORAD identifies and tracks incoming threats and Canadians are part of that process; but then the actual missile defence system takes over to try to engage those threats and Canadians are not part of that. We have long sought to thread the needle between detection and interception.

Fast-forward to President Trump’s Golden Dome and we face similar issues. Can we maintain NORAD’s benefits to Canada by finding a way to allow a modernized and more capable NORAD to provide the new system’s early warning and threat tracking capability, but not be part of the interception of the incoming missiles?

As we don’t yet know the details of the Golden Dome system, it is hard to say. For example, the architecture of President Bush’s more limited National Missile Defense (NMD) of several decades ago worked with all of the interceptor missiles based on US territory. Will that be the case today, or will the architecture of the Golden Dome require some of the interceptor missiles to be based in Canada, as well as in the US and in space? It is not yet clear, but, if some interceptor missiles have to be based in Canada for the system to work, a decision will have to be made to participate or not.

Moreover, the missile threat has evolved. Much more capable, long-range cruise missiles now pose a significant threat. Geography dictates that, even if their targets are in the US, they will fly over Canada. The US will never allow this threat to go unmet. If we don’t meet it, or cooperate with them to do so, they will meet it on their own and they won’t ask our permission.

Could Canada play a role in intercepting cruise missiles, but not in intercepting ballistic missiles? Can the two threats be separated from each other? If North America ever came under concerted attack, a potential enemy could launch both kinds of missiles to try to overcome defences. Can one have two entirely different command systems, one for cruise missiles and one for ballistic missiles, if those missiles are acting in concert?

These are some of the issues Canadian officials are likely grappling with. They need to figure out what is vital for Canada to participate in for our own interests, and what could be left to the US alone without threatening our sovereignty. And they need to do this in the overall context of a wider Canada-US relationship that has gone from stable over many decades to more hostile, uncharted territory that is inherently unpredictable.

We do have control over the question of whether and how we ‘participate’, and we should not assume that ‘participation’ in the system is necessarily an all-or-nothing affair.

This last point is especially crucial. President Trump’s fascination with the Golden Dome may be this week’s plaything, or it may be a lasting policy. His methods of achieving it may, or may not, hew to political and diplomatic norms with respect to things like our sovereignty — which he has already questioned anyway. When the costs of the system mount, as they are expected to do quite spectacularly, much of it may be quietly “postponed”, particularly if his tariff and other economic policies lead to a deep recession and the US cannot borrow on the bond markets to finance its endless debt.

Much of the project may prove a chimera in the end. Any real estate developer trying to sell the promise of a “big, beautiful building” to come (someday, if the land can be acquired, and the regulatory barriers overcome, and the money can be found at the right rates), will always try to make a hard sell to investors before ground is broken.

Of course, there are wider issues. Will the Golden Dome actually work perfectly, as the Trump administration says it will, and be operational before he leaves office in three years, as he says it will? Most experts think not. Will it stimulate a new arms race as Russia and China seek to overcome this new defence by building more missiles? Most experts think it will.

And, if we opt to fully participate in the system, and parts of it are eventually based in space (as preliminary designs call for), will participation mean abandoning our long-standing, treaty-based, opposition to weapons in space? What will other countries, those with whom we hope to diversify our relations, think of that? If we go all-in on this system, can we still diversify defence relations more broadly?

These higher-order questions are serious, though some of them are probably ones over which Canada doesn’t have much control. But we do have control over the question of whether and how we “participate,” and we should not assume that “participation” in the system is necessarily an all-or-nothing affair. Nor should we assume that the system Trump imagines in his frequently changing mind is the one that will ultimately be built in the decades to come.

Depending on how it is designed, participation could take the form of doing largely what we do in NORAD today — provide early warning and tracking of incoming threats. Or it could require a much deeper and more active level of engagement. Until we know where all of this is going, maybe the protection of the NORAD mission, and its benefits to Canada, is the prudent play.

If, under a different president in a future time, once the system is more fully understood and the Oval Office is a more stable place, Canada’s interests will be served by a more fulsome participation that can be revisited. President Trump may decry this approach as insufficient, but we have something he needs; our geography. As senior US military personnel have made clear before Congress, the system’s early warning requirements cannot be met without Canadian participation.

Defence experts and contractors who support such participation will be looking to get in on the ground floor, and will no doubt say that a firm decision about full membership is required today; that decisions are being made now as to what the system will look like and we need to be inside the room if we are to be full players. Some may also quietly argue that whether or not the system works someday in the future is not the main issue right now; we need to show the US that Canada is a serious ally on defence and signing up for this signature project will do that. Perhaps.

But this is tantamount to signing up for a decades-long project which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars without really knowing whether it will work or what our ultimate role will be in whatever is finally produced, if the system is ultimately built at all. It requires a leap of faith to imagine today that our defence interests will always be absolutely congruent with those of the US and that it is a prudent decision to commit to this now, when so much about our relationship with the Americans is so uncertain. As Prime Minister Carney has said, America under Donald Trump is not the reliable ally it once was.

If the decision is made to pursue an alternative to immediate full participation in the Golden Dome, finding a way to gently sell this will not be easy. In the context of broader discussions over tariffs and future economic and security arrangements, Canada’s representatives will have to tiptoe carefully around the issues. As is so often the case in diplomacy, the question is not whether you say “yes,” or “no,” but how you say it; which doors you close and which ones you leave partially open for another day.

Whichever way we go, it is crucially important that we be deadly serious about getting to 2% of GDP for defence quickly, or even beyond 2%. A failure to join the Golden Dome wholeheartedly, if coupled with an ongoing failure to meet this NATO spending commitment would be fatal to any credibility we might have. As part of that, the ongoing costs of modernizing NORAD, which will not be insignificant, cannot be skimped on.

If we are going to make our willingness to see NORAD play the role of threat detection and tracking the cornerstone of our approach to the Golden Dome, an approach that lands at “slightly less than full participation, but not quite rejection either,” we have to show that we are fully committed to doing an outstanding job on the NORAD mission.

Peter Jones is a Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

Dr. Adele Buckley 1938 – 2025

Posted on May 21, 2025editor
Dr. Adele Buckley is awarded the 2014 Canadians for Nuclear Weapons Convention (now Canadian Leadership for Nuclear Disarmament) annual achievement award.

Dr. Adele Buckley was a long-time member of Canadian Pugwash Group, and over several decades she had been Chair and Treasurer, expert in CPG bylaws detail and obligations, minder of our investments, and also a member of the International Pugwash Council.

Adele was a physicist, engineer, and environmental scientist, a visionary leader and a true pioneer in disarmament and environmental sustainability. She was a founding partner of Sciex, the developer and manufacturer of mass spectrometry systems, which now has extensive worldwide installations. Formerly she was V.P. of Solarchem Environmental Systems, (a developer of ultraviolet light [UVB] systems used to remove environmental contaminants in water), and formerly V.P. Technology and Research, Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement.

She is perhaps best known in Pugwash circles for her championing the campaign for a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Arctic, part of CPG’s Arctic Security project. The Arctic is a region she was committed to protect, and she presented the ANWFZ proposal at numerous international conferences and in six countries since 2007.

Adele’s leadership extended beyond Pugwash, serving on the advisory board of Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (recently renamed Canadian Leadership for Nuclear Disarmament), and the Global Issues Project, both of these efforts now being projects of Canadian Pugwash Group.

Adele drafted a chapter for a forthcoming publication about Pugwash Canada, and about the organizing of the 53rd International Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs that was held in Halifax, with stopovers in Pugwash, Nova Scotia in 2003. She describes one day at the Thinkers’ Lodge and the involvement of physicist (and Pugwash founder) Joseph Rotblat this way:

“This was not Jo Rotblat’s first return to Pugwash (after the founding conferences in 1957 and 1958), so he was at ease in the environment and delivered a stirring message about the necessity for nuclear disarmament, fitting his remarks to the conference theme of ‘Human Security’. [He] never hesitated to take governments to task for their lack or urgency in advancing the cause of nuclear disarmament.”

Adele presented a short paper, “The Negotiation Of Mutually Reinforcing Instruments Leading To Nuclear Disarmament”. on behalf of Canadian Pugwash to the 59th Pugwash Conference, in Berlin, 2011, in which she provided an electrical analogy for encouraing states and their leaders to work on a variety of strategies at the same time. She concluded that “there is a very strong case to be made for parallel negotiations on all segments of the nuclear disarmament issues, because there is a built-in advantage. Reaching the goal will be easier; one might guess that this arises from known inter-connectedness of problems.” Her paper is available here.

Several Pugwash Canada members and colleagues have referred to Adele’s work and commitment to the disarmament cause:

Past-Chair Paul Meyer wrote that “Adele seemed indefatigable in her activities in support of CPG. Her championship of the Arctic Security file long before it had become fashionable was only one example of her insight and perseverance.  I always relied on her wise counsel with respect to Pugwash affairs.”

Marius Grinius said: “Adele was a wonderful and dedicated proponent for the cause of peace. On her work for the Arctic as a NWFZ I especially appreciated her willingness to see and share all sides of this issue.”

Peggy Mason, Vice-Chair of Pugwash Canada, wrote, “Adele will leave a huge hole in the CPG family and in our hearts.”

Dr. Walter Dorn, a past Chair of Pugwash Canada, commented that Adele had been “a dear friend, a valuable colleague, a wise mentor, a conscientious financial steward [for Pugwash], and most of all a super dedicated advocate for peace. She was a pioneering researcher on an Arctic Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone and an important bridge to International Pugwash, on whose Council she has also served with distinction. Her dedication was shown in so many ways, including the principal organizer for the 2003 International Pugwash conference in Halifax. Even after she completed her term as Chair of CPG, she offered to serve in many other capacities, including as Chair of the Investment Committee.”

Dr. Erika Simpson wrote that Dr. Buckley “was a principled and intellectually rigorous colleague whose calm leadership and unwavering advocacy for nuclear disarmament and environmental responsibility earned her widespread respect across Canada’s peace and scientific communities.”

Long time friend to both Adele and her husband Peter for over 25 years, David Harries, a past CPG Chair, said: “Humanity will be less resilient without Adele’s wisdom, honesty, and tireless commitment to peace and well-being for all.”

Branka Marijan: “Dr. Buckley was a true inspiration, particularly to women working in disarmament in Canada. Her contributions and leadership will be remembered with deep respect.”

Pugwash member and cofounder of Project Ploughshares, Ernie Regehr comments: “In addition to all that she did for Pugwash and Canadian affiliates like CLND, [Canadian Leadership for Nuclear Disarmament] Adele closely monitored a wide range of publications on the Arctic, especially security related issues, and distributed the references widely – almost on a daily basis. Many longtime Arctic watchers and professionals benefited from and relied on her postings. She is indeed remembered with deep respect and affection.”

Bev Delong: “Adele’s careful management of the CPG funds has been extremely important to our work.  How often would we ask ‘Adele, what is in the bank?’ Her contribution of careful and undoubtedly time-consuming work allowed us to plan the international and national Pugwash meetings.”

Ellen Judd said: “Adele was such an extraordinarily knowledgeable and wise voice and a person of enormous energy and thoughtfulness.”

Robin Collins, CPG Secretary, worked more closely with Adele in recent years in a Pugwash climate committee focussed on the global warming crisis. Adele provided expertise, including for four climate mitigation and adaptation reports that were delivered to the federal, provincial and territorial governments. “She was very knowledgeable about materials science and technology, what we could be sure of, and what was less clear, and she was insistent that peer-reviewed evidence should not be sidelined.”

Upon hearing of her death, Alex Neve wrote: “That is indeed sorrowful and unexpected news.  It seems only days ago that I was having an email exchange with Adele on something CLND related.  That is how I had the good fortune to meet and come to know Adele over the last couple of years; but I can see from these messages how wide, broad and meaningful – and longstanding – her impact and influence was. A woman of conviction, and certainly a trailblazer in many respects.”

Within the Arctic security, and peace and nuclear weapon abolition communities, Adele Buckley was widely respected.  She was admired for her tenacity, the solidity of her opinions, her scientific knowledge and her generosity. We at Pugwash Canada will continue to work for progress on the commitments she advocated for, in particular in the area of Arctic Security, the project  to which she devoted much of her time.

The Canadian Pugwash Group is affiliated with the international Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which was founded in 1957 in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. The movement relies on scientists and other experts to work towards peace and global security through dialogue, and with a focus on nuclear disarmament and the responsible use of science and technology. The International movement and its founder Joseph Rotblat were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, “for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics and, in the longer run, to eliminate such arms”.

https://www.dignitymemorial.com/en-ca/obituaries/toronto-on/janette-buckley-12382738

“Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention” Announces Name Change to “Canadian Leadership for Nuclear Disarmament”

Posted on May 7, 2025editor

May 8, 2025 – Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (CNWC) is pleased to announce its new name: Canadian Leadership for Nuclear Disarmament (CLND). This change is to enable the organization’s name to better describe the breadth of the work we have done and will continue to do.

As a project of the Canadian Pugwash Group, the organization continues to unite over 1,000 recipients of the Order of Canada in advocating for global nuclear disarmament. CLND remains dedicated to its core objective:

“To call on all member states of the United Nations – including Canada – to endorse, and begin negotiations for, a Nuclear Weapons Convention.”

CLND recognizes that the pursuit of a comprehensive convention requires attention to the full spectrum of nuclear disarmament issues.

The name change explicitly acknowledges the endorsement of nuclear disarmament by a large group of leading Canadians who are recipients of the Order of Canada, and also that CLND urges Canada to take on a genuine leadership role in nuclear disarmament diplomacy broadly and in preparatory work towards a nuclear weapons convention.

“This updated name better represents our ongoing commitment to addressing the full spectrum of nuclear disarmament issues and conveys what we expect from our government in rising to that urgent global challenge,” said Alex Neve, the Chair of the Steering Committee of CLND. “While our mission remains the same, our renewed identity reflects the leadership that is needed, from government and from civil society, in pushing for concrete action.”

CLND aims to strengthen Canada’s role in fostering a world free of nuclear weapons through advocacy, policy recommendations, and public engagement. The organization will continue to work closely with policymakers, civil society, and international partners to advance diplomatic solutions and promote Canada’s active participation in nuclear disarmament negotiations.

For more information, please contact:

Alex Neve, Steering Committee Chair
Canadian Leadership for Nuclear Disarmament
Email: CLND@pugwashgroup.ca

Website: https://pugwashgroup.ca/clnd/

Media Releases:

CLND Name Change Press Release – EN

CLND Name Change Press Release – FR

Three articles by Michael Manulak

Posted on April 24, 2025editor

Michael Manulak is a member of Canadian Pugwash Group.

In Foreign Policy, Manulak draws insights from Stoicism for statecraft today. In the current disorienting global context, he’s been drawn back to first principles. He writes: “I’m struck by the relevance of Stoic ethics for rethinking statecraft. It is a bit of a big think piece that challenges many of our assumptions about politics and diplomacy today.”   https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/04/18/foreign-policy-stoics-philosophy-virtue-justice/

In the Hill Times, Manulak argue that, “in the current global context, Canada should invest in reforming and strengthening the Commonwealth of Nations. It is an institution without the big power baggage infecting world politics currently. The Commonwealth contains 2.7 billion people and some of the world’s most dynamic economies. Canada should try in particular to deepen trade within the bloc. A strengthened Commonwealth would allow us to strengthen our ties with countries in all the world regions, while advancing environmental sustainability, democracy, and human rights.” You can find it here.

In February, Lloyd Axworthy, Allan Rock, and Manulak published an article in Policy magazine on how and why Canada should build a diplomatic coalition to counter U.S. bullying.  Here it is: https://www.policymagazine.ca/the-time-has-come-for-canada-to-hit-back/

Regehr/Roche: What Canada needs now is more robust, visionary diplomacy, not more military spending

Posted on April 5, 2025editor

Ernie Regehr and Douglas Roche are members of Canadian Pugwash Group
This article was published in The Hill Times, April 2, 2025

PDF version here: RegehrRocheHT_April7.2025

As the present front-runner in the election race, Mark Carney has a special responsibility to straightforwardly pledge support for a global recommitment to international cooperation based on respect for international law as the urgent security imperative for our time.

EDMONTON—In their election campaigns, Canadian political leaders are sidestepping the real issue of this country’s security by insisting that more military spending will guarantee our safety. But more arms have rarely—if ever—advanced durable peace. What we urgently need is more robust and visionary diplomacy.

According to the polls, Mark Carney could well be prime minister for the next four years. He needs to prepare Canadians now for what he would do in what he has called a “new economic and security relationship” with the United States. His economic agenda is coming into focus on the tariffs question. But, aside from promising to boost Canada’s military spending to two per cent of GDP by 2030, he has not spoken about the wide agenda for peace that sweeps far beyond military measures.

All the leading contenders in this election keep referring to increased military spending as a primary response to threats to our sovereignty and changing security conditions in the Arctic. As an effort to placate a mercurial American president, this is a fool’s errand and, more importantly, it ignores the true foundations on which durable global peace and security are built.

The call on Canada to rally around the old shibboleth “if you want peace, prepare for war” is persuasive only if you ignore what contemporary war most often produces. The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Ukraine, and Gaza tell the story. The one thing these wars have not brought is peace. In all those devastating conflicts, it is when the fighting finally stops that peace can begin to be built.

Of course, it should be acknowledged that the Canadian Armed Forces do face some equipment deficiencies and recruitment challenges, which is leading to important corrective measures. Reconsidering the F-35 fighter aircraft purchase and improvements to Arctic patrols and situation awareness in all domains, as well as emergency response capacity, make eminent sense to the extent they respond to Canadian-defined needs. But concentrating only on increased military spending ignores the funds and initiatives needed for equitable human development and peace-building at home and abroad.

Sadly, Canada has now abandoned peacekeeping. Furthermore, the diplomacy, peacebuilding, development, and climate action side of this country’s security ledger continues to be woefully under-funded. And the new calls for increased military spending, with no specific commitment to restoring peacekeeping, will further reduce our ability to be a significant player in the much wider agenda for peace.

The UN Agenda for Peace, the Canadian-inspired institution of UN peacekeeping, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, peacebuilding programs around the world, and the UN’s 2024 Pact for the Future all point a constructive way forward, and to the truth that if you want peace, you have to build it. But without exception, all those initiatives are grievously underfunded while global military arsenals are lavished at the rate of over $2.5-trillion each year.

When the Cold War ended, the major powers explored ways of meeting mutual security interests. Canada played key roles in fostering peacekeeping, the Landmines Treaty, the International Criminal Court, the Responsibility to Protect, disarmament diplomacy, and by staying out of the Iraq war and declining to join the unworkable Strategic Defence Initiative of then-U.S. president Ronald Reagan.

Those Canadian initiatives and actions were concrete achievements that helped to build peace and a stronger world security order, and thus a stronger Canada—but all that has faded from our collective memory. At this hinge moment in world affairs, leaders need to detail their visions for our country once again becoming a strong diplomatic player in building the conditions for peace.

These four pillars of a reconstructed peace architecture need Canada’s support:

  • Equitable economic and social development built through more public and private financial support for the UN Sustainable Development Goals;
  • Measures to cut carbon emissions and drive investment towards sustainable energy to defend against catastrophic climate change and mitigate consequences;
  • Arms control to rehabilitate a failing infrastructure, challenge the U.S., Russia, and China to pursue mutual restraint, promote the“denuclearization” that U.S. President Donald Trump has advocated, and renew disarmament diplomacy and sign on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; and
  • Human rights protection—notably of the peoples of Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and other war-torn places—through international peace forces operating under international law and vigorous multilateral peace-building.

In the Pact for the Future, endorsed by virtually all world leaders, states have agreed to address the root causes of conflicts, and to accelerate commitments to human rights. This is where Canada needs to invest its diplomatic and soft-power strength. In doing the right thing, our nation will also be strengthened to meet the challenges coming our way from our erstwhile continental partner.

As the present front-runner in the election race, Carney has a special responsibility to straightforwardly pledge support for a global recommitment to international cooperation based on respect for international law as the urgent security imperative for our time.

___________

Ernie Regehr is the founding executive director of Project Ploughshares, and author of The Simons Foundation’s Arctic Security Briefing Papers.  Former Senator Douglas Roche is the author of Keep Hope Alive: Essays for a War-free World (Amazon).

The Hill Times

Meyer: Dueling Diplomacy on Outer Space Security

Posted on March 27, 2025editor

Paul Meyer is a board member and former Chair of Canadian Pugwash Group.
Dueling Diplomacy on Outer Space Security; Centre for International Policy Studies

At first glance outer space security appears to command universal support at the UN General Assembly. Each year since 1981 the General Assembly adopts a resolution with near universal support on the “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” (PAROS). The resolution warns of the dire threat to international security any such arms race would pose, and calls for the negotiation of “further measures” to consolidate and reinforce the existing legal regime of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and to enhance its effectiveness.

 

Regehr: The Imperative to Talk With Adversaries Includes the Arctic

Posted on March 27, 2025editor

The Imperative to Talk With Adversaries Includes the Arctic

Among its strengths, Canada’s new Arctic Foreign Policy (AFP) upholds diplomacy as “a first line of defence for Canada’s national security.” For now, however, it seems this “line of defence” is to remain somewhat idle when it comes to dealing with the adversary identified as a prime threat to our security. The insistence that a return to political engagement and cooperation with Russia, including in the Arctic, must await the end of its war on Ukraine is a sharp departure from past practice. In the face of similarly egregious transgressions, direct engagement with the Soviet Union persisted throughout the Cold War, in the interests of both accountability and strategic stability. The AFP rightly rejects “business as usual” with Russia, but that should not translate into ignoring critically important business at hand in the Arctic – especially the recovery of strategic stability and addressing the gathering climate catastrophe at the regional level.

Read on: here

Arctic Security Briefing Paper
By Ernie Regehr, O.C.
Senior Fellow in Arctic Security and DefenceThe Simons Foundation Canada
January 14, 2025

EN / FR