Turcotte: UN Summit to Talk About UN Emergency Peace Service

UNEPS is envisioned as a permanent, integrated, multi-functional unit of up to 13,000 well-equipped and highly trained personnel, ready for almost immediate deployment when authorized by the Security Council.

BY EARL TURCOTTE
December 14, 2023, Published in The Hill Times

CNN reports on yet another Israeli airstrike in Gaza. After panning across the seeming total destruction of residential buildings, the camera trains on a small clearing where bodies of some of the dead have been laid out. One is a toddler no more than three years old. Standing over him is a devastated Palestinian boy about 10 years old, who screams in his language “they killed my father and my baby brother!” He leans down to kiss his tiny brother on the cheek to say goodbye. Such indescribable heart-break. Such an inhuman outrage. As was the murderous attack by Hamas on innocent Israeli men, women, and children on Oct. 7 that left 1,200 dead, and an additional 240 taken hostage.

Admonitions notwithstanding, nations of the world stand by as the slaughter of innocents continues in Gaza, Ukraine, Yemen, and elsewhere. Some add fuel to the fire. In 1992, then-United Nations secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali proposed that the UN Security Council be provided forces and resources to enable it to intervene—militarily if necessary—in an imminent or ongoing conflict when all efforts at mediation and negotiation have been exhausted. Moreover, he proposed that such forces be available on a permanent, rather than ad hoc, basis. In effect, he wanted to create a standby UN force with the mandate and might to challenge belligerents if necessary in order to prevent or bring violent conflict to a summary end; UN ‘peacemakers,’ as distinct from ‘peacekeepers.’

It was never suggested that such a force could effectively challenge the world’s most powerful countries. Even so, Boutros-Ghali speculated that its very existence could deter most breaches of the peace. With more than a hint of irony, his proposal failed to garner adequate support within the UN Security Council itself.

The Brahimi Report on United Nations Peace Operations, issued in 2000, echoed the need for such a capacity, and recommended that the UN maintain brigade-size forces of 5,000 troops able to deploy in 30 to 90 days as part of a UN team, including political, development, and human rights experts. This proposal also went nowhere.

The latest iteration of this general concept is a proposal to establish a UN Emergency Peace Service (UNEPS) that would provide a rapid UN response to prevent or end armed conflict, protect civilians at extreme risk, prepare for peacekeeping operations if required, and to provide the basic necessities for survival in conflict zones where others either cannot or will not.

UNEPS is envisioned as a permanent, integrated, multi-functional unit of up to 13,000 highly trained personnel, well-equipped and ready for almost immediate deployment when authorized by the Security Council: a body that could respond in a matter of days, as opposed to the months required for ad hoc arrangements—when they happen at all. This proposal will be discussed during the upcoming 2024 United Nations Summit of the Future in September. One wonders if UN member states will finally muster the resolve to provide the UN with substantial means to prevent or end violence.

Earl Turcotte is a former Canadian diplomat and United Nations official, and a member of Canadian Pugwash Group.

The Hill Times

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2023/12/14/united-nations-summit-of-the-future-in-2024-to-talk-about-uneps/405972/

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.

Paul Meyer is adjunct professor of international studies at Simon Fraser University and a director of the Canadian Pugwash Group. Photograph courtesy of Paul Meyer

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

 

 

Roche: Defying government position, they attend TPNW meeting


McPhedran, May, McPherson, Davies defy government, attend UN meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Senator Marilou McPhedran will use her experience to engage her Senate colleagues in special dialogues. Green Leader Elizabeth May says she’s ‘more committed than ever to advocate for nuclear disarmament as the only way to a secure world.’NDP MP Heather McPherson wants to develop a nuclear disarmament caucus in Parliament.

EDMONTON—Three women parliamentarians, responding to an International Red Cross call for the world to display “the dictates of public conscience” against nuclear weapons, have become the conscience of the Canadian Parliament. Non-affiliated Senator Marilou McPhedran, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, and NDP MP Heather McPherson defied the Government of Canada by attending a meeting of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons held last week at the United Nations in New York.

The government refused to attend, even as an observer, because it feared the wrath of the United States and NATO headquarters. Both the U.S. and NATO have taken a hostile position against the treaty—which has so far been ratified by 69 states—because it outlaws the possession of nuclear weapons.

Three NATO states—Germany, Norway and Belgium— did attend as observers at the weeklong meeting, which the top UN disarmament official, Izumi Nakamitsu, called “more important than ever” because of growing geopolitical tensions. These three states showed more courage than Canada, which calculated that the cost of attending would be greater in incurring the displeasure of NATO than the cost of not attending and incurring merely the disappointment of the domestic nuclear disarmament movement.

The Canadian women told me they attended out of a sense of obligation not only to protest Canada’s absence, but to better equip themselves to push this government to live up to its promises and obligations. McPhedran is a non-affiliated Senator from Manitoba; May represents Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.; and McPherson represents Edmonton-Strathcona, Alta., and is the NDP’s foreign affairs critic. The three parliamentarians have previously staked out leadership stances against nuclear weapons and are trying to rally their colleagues. This time, NDP MP Don Davies, who represents Vancouver-Kingsway, B.C., joined them at the New York meeting. As May put it to me: “We went to press for Canada to be on the right side of history in signing and ratifying the Prohibition Treaty.”

The right side of history: that’s an interesting perspective. Where is nuclear disarmament going in today’s world? With both the U.S. and Russia shredding previous agreements and treaties, the nuclear disarmament architecture is collapsing. It’s true that the number of nuclear weapons, currently about 12,500 held by nine states, is considerably down from the high of 70,000 in the 1980s. But all the nuclear states are modernizing their arsenals, and intend to keep them for the rest of this century.

The U.S. Congressional Strategic Posture Commission recently recommended that the U.S. increase its number of deployed warheads, as well as increase its production of bombers, air-launched cruise missiles, ballistic missile submarines, non-strategic nuclear forces, and warhead production capacity. The Federation of American Scientists excoriated the report for ignoring the consequences of a new nuclear arms race with Russia and China. Both countries are now enlarging their nuclear weapons capacity to counter what they see as a constant U.S. build-up.

A new nuclear arms race is under way. Mirjana Spoljaric Egger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, appealed to the Prohibition Treaty meeting not to let the world “lose sight of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that any use of nuclear weapons — be it strategic or tactical, offensive, or defensive — would have.”

The leaders of the Prohibition Treaty are trying to stem the new nuclear surge, but they can hardly be heard in today’s warring atmosphere. Nonetheless, they are persevering and deepening scientific work showing how the world would totally collapse in the event of nuclear war.

So where is the technological build-up of nuclear warfare capacity really taking the world? Towards doomsday or to a new age of humanitarian enlightenment? One would think that Canada would want to make an impact on the development of nuclear history. But no, our country dodges its responsibilities in the misguided notion that its NATO obligations constrain it from joining the new march of history.

In New York, McPhedran, May and McPherson signed a statement issued by 23 parliamentarians from 14 countries promising to take this fight to the policymakers of the nuclear states. At home, they pledged themselves to shake up the Canadian establishment. They are brave politicians. They have stuck out their necks. McPhedran intends to use her experience to brief and engage her Senate colleagues in special dialogues. May says she is “more committed than ever to advocate for nuclear disarmament as the only way to a secure world.” McPherson wants to develop a nuclear disarmament caucus in Parliament.

Will they actually get Canada to move to the right side of history? Who knows, but, as McPherson said, they “felt compelled to be present.”

Former Senator Douglas Roche’s latest book is Keep Hope Alive: Essays for a War-free World
The Hill Times

Download as pdf here

Meyer: The War in Ukraine is our Nuclear Arms Wake-up Call

Carefully crafted arms control and disarmament mechanisms are rusting-out before us

In reflecting on the consequences of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine on prospects for nuclear disarmament, the situation we are experiencing today might best be understood as a crisis of communication. Simply put, the nuclear armed protagonists of our manmade crisis are not speaking to one another. And in the absence of such communication the risks attendant upon misunderstandings, misperceptions and miscalculations grow. Couple this breakdown of communication with the ongoing war against a sovereign state, the maintenance of thousands of nuclear missiles on a high-alert status and the maintenance of “launch on warning” doctrines and there is every reason to be alarmed.

Article by Paul Meyer linked here

Simpson: Adressing Challenges Facing NATO

  • Addressing Challenges Facing NATO and the United States Using Lessons Learned from Afghanistan and Ukraine: linked here
    To avoid more suffering among millions of Afghans and Ukrainians due to war necessitates attention to the lessons of Afghanistan vis-à-vis the Russian-Ukraine war. The abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan by the arbitrary deadline of August 30, 2021 led to a disastrous exit and a low point in promulgating a culture of peace. Lessons learned from Afghanistan relevant to involvement in Ukraine are presented in a timeframe dating from the origins of the conflict; to the grounds for intervention by NATO and the United States; to the type and location of intervention; to the types of warfare; to the grounds for NATO’s withdrawal. Recommendations that address the challenges facing NATO and the U.S. over Afghanistan and Ukraine are made based on lessons learned—and spurned—from the early stages of involvement in Afghanistan after 9/11, proceeding to the final stage of withdrawal in 2021.
  • Addressing Challenges Facing NATO Using Lessons Learned From Canada: linked here
    THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IS YET another international crisis that
    necessitates nations learn more from each other about how to solve challenges
    faced by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
  • Pearson and Simpson: How to de-escalate dangerous nuclear weapons and force deployments in Europe, linked here
    Amidst the war in Ukraine, it is important to raise the prospect and vision of creating mutual security guarantees and ridding Europe of its dangerous nuclear weapon systems and provocative force deployments. In view of reckless Kremlin rhetoric and aggressive military action in Russia’s so-called near abroad, it is time for renewed approaches to arms control. As the Ukraine situation plays out, Russia, the United States, and allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must return to their bargaining tables and negotiate strict limits, verification measures, and overarching controls over their nuclear use doctrines, weapon stockpiles, and conventional force deployments. All sides will have to make deep concessions and de-alert and de-operationalize mid- and short-range nuclear weapons while improving command and control safeguards—because, as we see, brandishing weapons and threatening escalation heightens tensions and increases the danger of crises spiralling uncontrollably.

EN / FR