Warring parties must lay down weapons to fight bigger battle against COVID-19

UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s plea to ‘silence the guns’ would create corridors for lifesaving aid and open windows for diplomacy in the war-torn zones in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the central areas of Africa.

The Hill Times, 6 April 2020

EDMONTON—”The fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war.” In one short sentence, UN Secretary-General António Guterres opened the door to a new understanding of what constitutes human security. Will governments seize the opportunity provided by the immense crisis of COVID-19 to finally adopt a global agenda for peace?

In an extraordinary move on March 23, Guterres urged warring parties around the world to lay down their weapons in support of the bigger battle against COVID-19 the common enemy now threatening all of humanity. He called for an immediate global ceasefire everywhere: “It is time to put armed conflict on lockdown and focus together on the true fight of our lives.”

His plea to “silence the guns” would create corridors for life-saving aid and open windows for diplomacy in the war-torn zones in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the central areas of Africa.

But the full meaning of Guterres’s appeal is much bigger than only suspending existing wars. It is a wakeup call to governments everywhere that war does not solve existing problems, that the huge expenditures going into armaments divert money desperately needed for health supplies, that a bloated militarism is impotent against the new killers in a globalized world.

All the armies in the world can’t stop COVTD-19. It’s a dark and scary moment when a bunch of microbes brings humanity to its knees. We’ve come to a turning point in world history. The old ways of building security—bigger and better weapons—are completely irrelevant now.

So what do we do when a virus blatantly crosses borders and ignores strategic weapons systems? More of the same thinking that deceived people into believing that as long as we had big guns we would be safe won’t do. We have to overhaul our thinking.

“Big thinking” is not just a bromide. It’s now essential for survival. We have to build a system to provide common security. In the midst of the Cold War four decades ago, an all-star international panel led by Swedish prime minister Olof Palme established the principle that, in the age of weapons of mass destruction, no nation by itself can find security. Nations can only find security in cooperation and not at one another’s expense. Common security, Palme argued, requires an end to arms competitions, national restraint, and a spirit of collective responsibility and mutual confidence.

Over the following years, the idea of common security broadened out beyond military measures to include new streams of cooperation in economic and social development and protection of the environment.

Suddenly, in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union imploded.The Cold War ended. In 1992, the UN secretary-general at the time, Boutros Boutros-Ghali wrote a stunning document, Agenda for Peace, incorporating the ideas of common security into practical programs for peacebuilding, preventive diplomacy and peacekeeping.

But instead of overhauling the global security system to provide common security for everyone, governments lumbered on and threw the peace dividend they had in their hands out the window. The Western countries expanded NATO up to Russia’s borders. Russia invaded Crimea. Arms expenditures shot up. Governments squandered a magnificent opportunity to build a world of peace.The culture of war was too strong and the moment was lost.

Three decades ago, the great historian Barbara Tuchman and author of The March of Folly was right when she wrote: “Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of pre-conceived notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs.”

Now, in the current crisis, Guterres is telling us that continuation of the “folly” of war is jeopardizing the security for all—the rich as well as the marginalized.The Trump administration’s call for $46-billion more for nuclear weapons when the country can’t even provide enough masks for health workers in treating COVID-19 is obscene beyond words.

And what about Canada? The government plans to increase defence spending to $32-billion by 2027. Why? To appease U.S. Donald President Trump’s gargantuan military appetite driving NATO states to spend two percent of their GDP on weaponry and all that goes with it. We can beat COVID-19 by spending money on health and development measures, not arms.

Far better to cut Canada’s planned defence spending by 10 per cent and put an extra $2-billion to $3-billion into the UN’S Sustainable Development Goals, the 17-point program centring around huge improvements in maternal health, water systems and sustainable agriculture. But we can’t get there with a continuation of “ordinary” planning. We need truly bold thinking to beat back the threat posed to common security by COVID-19.

The Canadian government wants to show what it could do on the Security Council. Switching political thinking from the culture of war to a culture of peace would be worthy of the greatest health challenge Canada has faced in the past hundred years.

Douglas Roche, a former MP, Senator and Canadian ambassador for disarmament, is the author of Hope Not Fear: Building Peace in a Fractured World.

Canadian Pugwash Group activities 2018-20

1. Statement on USA-Iran confrontation. January 15, 2020

2. September 2019 CPG Conference:  Speeding Towards the Abyss: Report
The contemporary arms race in its various dimensions was the theme of a conference co-sponsored by Canadian Pugwash and the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa on September 26, 2019. The conference brought together academic and civil society experts to examine how the “arms race” of the Cold War is reviving and spreading beyond the nuclear weapons arena to new domains such as outer space, cyberspace and AI.

3. Erosion of Arms Control Panel
Paul Meyer on October 17, 2019 was invited to participate in the subject panel held as a side event during the current session of the UN’s First Committee. The panel was chaired by Sergio Duarte, President of International Pugwash and included Prof Nina Tannenwald of Brown University (author of the “nuclear taboo” thesis); Anne Kempaiinen (Minister Counsellor-EU Delegation Geneva) and Andrey Baklitskiy (PIR Centre Moscow).

4. The UN, Peacekeeping and Technology project had this article published:
Cyberpeacekeeping: New Ways to Prevent and Manage Cyberattacks; authored by
Dr. Walter Dorn.

5. Publication as part of UN/PK and Technology project: Eliminating Hidden Killers: How Can Technology Help Humanitarian Demining?, authored by Dr. Walter Dorn.
This paper calls for new ideas, renewed innovation, and new sources of governmental and non-governmental support for this often-neglected aspect of international security.

6. Setsuko Thurlow, who jointly accepted the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of ICAN, was interviewed in Toronto, June 2019 at a luncheon in her honour.

7. Two members of CPG, Dr. Adele Buckley and Dr. David Harries, attended the EuroPugwash meeting in Bristol, UK, Feb 28 & Mar 1, 2019, and both made presentations.

8. CPG sponsored or co-sponsored four panels/side-events at the NPT PrepCom May, 2019, led by Dr. Erika Simpson, assisted by Dr. Adele Buckley

  1. Strategies for Advancing towards a World Without Nuclear Weapons
  2. NATO’s Strategic Concept and the 2020 NPT Review Conference
  3. Lessons of NATO Operations for the 2020 NPT Review Conference
  4. Cooperation Toward Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

9. The Canadian Pugwash Group co-sponsored the Group of 78 (G78) Annual Policy Conference on “Global Markets, Inequality and the Future of Democracy” at University of Ottawa on September 27-28 2019. Members of the Canadian Pugwash Global Issues Project, including Peter Venton, participated in the research and planning of this Conference

10. CPG organizes annual research roundtables:
In 2019, topics included:

  • The UN Enters Twenty-first Century Technologically
  • Outer Space and the United Nations: Harnessing Science for Human Rights and Sustainable Development
  • International institutions in the postcolonial era: For an inclusive peace
  • Researching a Framework for Transnational Collaboration on Common Security
  • What prospects for controls on military applications of AI?
  • Can Trees Save Us?
  • A Besieged Kashmir: South Asia’s Nuclear Precariousness Gets Dangerously Routinized

In 2018, topics included:

  • Bertrand Russell Revisited: regaining a mobilized public and political establishment
  • NATO: Canada in or out?
  • Attack Helicopters and Other Crucial Technologies in UN
  • New Posture for Life
  • Climate change: a discussion about Project Drawdown

11. War or Peace in Cyberspace: Whither International Cyber Security Policy? Paul Meyer organized a policy conference in May 2018,  Waterloo, Ontario.

12. CPG co-sponsored three panels/side-events at the NPT PrepCom May, 2018, led by Dr. Erika Simpson, assisted by Dr. Adele Buckley

13. May 2018: CPG was a participant in and cosponsor of: “How to Save the World in a Hurry” conference at the University of Toronto. Conference organizer was Prof Metta Spencer, CPG emeritus member. A list of 25 policies — the “Platform for Survival” — was adopted by consensus.

14. CPG continues to be the administrative home of Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (CNWC). In February 2020, CNWC hosted a visit of UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Izumu Nakamitsu. She met parliamentarians, government officials and gave a public lecture. CNWC co-hosts expert panel discussions, and also presents an annual award to a Canadian who has made a significant contribution to a peaceful world.

15. In 2020, CPG became the administrative home of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (CNANW). CNANW is asking Canada’s Prime Minister to be keynote speaker at the 75th Anniversary Commemoration of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, August 6,2020 in Ottawa.

16. CPG sponsors two well-used discussion groups arctic-nuclear-weapon-free@googlegroups.com and cdnpugwashgrp@googlegroups.com , managed by Adele Buckley and Robin Collins respectively.

17. A new CPG Board of Directors was elected at the Annual General Meeting in September, 2019. Details can be found at www.pugwashgroup.ca

18. The CPG website was actively used, with over 50 new items posted in 2019.

CPG was a signatory (and/or co-author) to several Canadian NGO co-organized statements.
In addition several reports, publications, op-eds were produced by individual CPG members.

The NPT Turns 50: a mid-life crisis?

originally published at Centre for International Policy Studies

On March 5, the (Nuclear) Non-proliferation Treaty will turn 50 years old. Whether this will be an occasion for celebration or lamentation is an open question. The NPT’s once-in-five-year review conference will take place at UN HQ, April 27-May 22, and coming after a failed 2015 review conference many observers view the upcoming meeting as crucial for The Treaty’s future.

With 190 states parties, the NPT is the preeminent international security agreement, the “cornerstone” of the global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. Yet this treaty is currently facing the most serious challenge to its authority since its inception.

The problems facing the NPT are legion. The re-emergence of great power rivalry is undermining its foundations of international cooperation in managing global nuclear affairs.

Read more

A new Canadian peace centre could make a world of difference

The Hill Times | 29/01/2020

Who isn’t concerned about our shared global challenges? It’s hard to miss overlapping crises, many fuelled by militarism, marginalization, and inequality.

Canada provided pivotal leadership and ideas in the past and it could definitely help again. The recently announced Canadian Centre for Peace, Order, and Good Government therefore is a much-needed step in the right direction.

The details have yet to be finalized, but this much is clear: the new Canadian Centre is part of an effort to “lead by example and help make the world a safe, just, prosperous, and sustainable place.” Mandate letters to cabinet ministers suggest an interdepartmental centre (i.e., within government) is proposed “to expand the availability of Canadian expertise and assistance to those seeking to build peace, advance justice, promote human rights and democracy, and deliver good governance.”

While this is promising, three concerns need attention: is the scope sufficiently broad to address our urgent global challenges; should the centre be within government or independent; and is there a better Canadian model?

The mandate needs to reference peace and security, disarmament and sustainable development, defence and foreign policy, and the deeper co-operation required to address these shared global challenges.

Further, a centre within government will be inclined to represent government policy and priorities without providing independent analysis, constructive criticism, and innovative policy options now needed.

This is not how issues of peace and conflict are approached in other highly recognized national centres in Sweden (SIPRI), the United States (USIP), Norway (PRIO), Switzerland (GCSP), Japan (JCCP), Austria (IIPS), etc. Being independent and at arm’s length from government is crucial for the credibility and the capacity of the centre. Canada once led in this respect, too.

In 1984, the late Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau provided a very good model in the Canadian Institute of International Peace and Security (CIIPS). Bill C-32, at that time stated:

“The Purpose of the Institute is to increase knowledge and understanding of the issues relating to international peace and security from a Canadian perspective, with particular emphasis on arms control, disarmament, defence and conflict resolution, and to: a) foster, fund and conduct research on matters relating to international peace and security; b) promote scholarship in matters relating to international peace and security; c) study and propose ideas and policies for the enhancement of international peace and security, and; d) collect and disseminate information on, and encourage public discussion of, issues of international peace and security.”

When initially proposed, the throne speech noted: “Reflecting Canada’s concern about current international tensions, the government will create a publicly funded centre… Fresh ideas and new proposals, regardless of source, will be studied and promoted.”

CIIPS initially focused on four priority areas: arms control, disarmament, defence, and conflict resolution. As new needs arose, it responded with projects on UN peace operations, internal conflicts, confidence building, and conflict prevention.

The approach of creative and innovative research, education, outreach and policy proposals targeted four priority audiences: the public, the scholarly community, the government, and the international audience.

Within just two years, CIIPS was widely recognized and central to collaborative projects with other national institutes and international organizations, as well as numerous universities and centres of expertise. In providing support for civil society and academia, it was also appreciated on the home front.

CIIPS helped elevate discussions on international peace and security in a period of high-risk and high anxiety. As the late Geoffrey Pearson and Nancy Gordon wrote, CIIPS’ demise in 1992 was effectively “shooting oneself in the head.”

The underlying rationale for the former CIIPS remains relevant. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau recognized the growing risks to global security and the lack of independent analysis, facts, and policy options available to the Canadian government.

Twenty-five years of austerity has drained and depleted much of Canada’s independent expertise on peace and security. Most of our foreign and defence policy think tanks rely heavily on funding from DND and the defence industry.

There is also considerably less institutional memory and enthusiasm to explore what might be doable on the key global issues of peace, security, and sustainable development. These include the prevention of armed conflict and its peaceful resolution, protection of civilians, and UN peace operations—all of which should be central to a feminist foreign policy. Instead, we see a focus on new means and methods of warfare from “hybrid conflicts” to offensive cyber operations to space war.

Canada had a positive model in CIIPS; one that may now be emulated and modified in support of a new 21st Century Canadian Centre for Peace, Order, and Good Government.

The Rideau Institute and other leading Canadian NGOs, in the context of the 2016 Defence Policy Review, recommended: “As one of the few leading OECD members without such an institution, Canada should establish an expert, arm’s length, non-partisan, domestic institute for sustainable common security, with long-term financial viability… Its Board of Directors should be diverse and include academic, non-governmental, and international expertise.”

In light of the new CPOGG proposal, the Rideau Institute went on to say that first and foremost, the focus must be on enhancing Canadian capacity for analysis and policy development on international peace and security, as the only solid basis for “lending expertise to others.” It also suggested that to be credible and sustainable, the mandate must ensure the centre’s independence, diversity, and long term-financial viability.

Finally, the work of the Centre must be firmly grounded in the principles of international co-operation; peaceful conflict resolution; and inclusive, sustainable common security that underpin the United Nations Charter. Canada cannot help to build international peace and security by seeking to impose on others an inward-looking version of “Canadian values”. Instead, our work must be fully and transparently grounded in global principles as reflected in international law and in respect of which Canada has played a key role in developing and strengthening.

In short, for this recently proposed peace centre to be worthwhile, let’s reflect on what is now urgent so we can aim higher.

Peggy Mason is the president of the Rideau Institute and a former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament to the United Nations. Dr. Peter Langille specializes in peace research, conflict resolution, and initiatives to improve UN peace operations.

Statement by the Canadian Pugwash Group on the USA-Iran Confrontation

The deaths of 176 passengers on a jetliner struck by an Iranian missile (apparently in error) is a tragedy of immense proportions felt intensely in Canada because 57 of the persons on board were Canadians. Canadian Pugwash Group extends condolences to the families, loved ones and friends of all who died. We also fully support the Government of Canada in its efforts to ensure a full, transparent and independent investigation of the circumstances that led to the strike, and to obtain adequate support and redress for the victims’ families.

But this is not only an unimaginable tragedy for all those with loved ones and friends on the Ukrainian airline.

Peace in the world is threatened by the USA-Iran stand-off following mutual attacks on each other, and UN Secretary-General António Guterres has made a passionate appeal for action in capitals across the world. The UN chief has presented a clear four-point message for what needs to happen now:

“Stop escalation. Exercise maximum restraint. Re-start dialogue. Renew international cooperation. …

“It is our common duty to make every effort to avoid a war in the Gulf that the world cannot afford,” the Secretary-General said. “We must not forget the terrible human suffering caused by war. As always, ordinary people pay the highest price.”

This is a message the Government of Canada, which wants to join the United Nations Security Council, should take to heart.

Canada should immediately step up its efforts to promote the rule of law as set down in the United Nations Charter by giving practical support to the new Alliance for Multilateralism. The Alliance, formed in 2019 and led by Germany, is a group of nations working to boost international cooperation, strengthen the United Nations, and reform international institutions.

Closer to home, Canada should revive the process of re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iran. We simply cannot continue to rely on other nations to provide the consular services and diplomatic interactions that are fundamental prerequisites for addressing any issue we might need to discuss with Iran.

At the same time, Canada should make it clear to NATO partners that the only appropriate role for the collective defence organization is one of counselling mutual restraint, and providing diplomatic support for a negotiated solution to the current USA-Iran crisis, in full accordance with the UN Charter and international law, to which all NATO members are bound.

All nations must re-commit to the UN Charter, which places the primary responsibility for peace and security with the Security Council, but which also gives the General Assembly a role, should the Security Council fail to act.

The extraordinarily serious environmental and security challenges facing the world today require extraordinary measures by governments large and small. Canadian Pugwash urges the government of Canada to put the common good of humanity as its first consideration in policy-making in international affairs.

[ signed: Paul Meyer, chair; Peggy Mason, vice-chair ]

We must do more to prevent nuclear war

Times Educational Supplement | December 9, 2019

When Greta Thunberg gives a speech, she wastes no time getting to the point.

“You come to young people for hope,” she told the United Nations General Assembly in September. “You say you understand the urgency…How dare you then pretend that this can be solved by ‘business as usual’?…Change is coming, whether you like it, or not.”

What Greta said is no less true of the most serious danger we face today: nuclear war.

Read more

EN / FR