Manulak: Rethinking and Rebuilding the United Nations

Posted on editor

Recent publications by Canadian Pugwash member Michael Manulak (et al.)

Canada and the United Nations

Michael Manulak and Kerry Buck  summarize their 2023 report “Canada and the United Nations: Rethinking and Rebuilding Canada’s Global Role.”  For the text of our original report: here. This report benefitted from the advice of a committee of eight former ambassadors (including five former Canadian UN Ambassadors).  Available here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/00207020241298266

“Setting the Record Straight”: A firm rejoinder to Jack Cunningham’s article on why Canada should marginalize the UN, also published in International Journal. Here Manulak and Buck challenge Jack’s skepticism toward the UN: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/00207020241298265

Podcast on the topic here and a paper in Policy Magazine here.

“The Allies’ Dilemma”: Manulak published this article in Policy Magazine, November 24, on the dilemmas posed by the Trump presidency for U.S. allies and partners.  On Europe/NATO, Climate, and Nuclear Disarmament, Trump 2.0 forces U.S. allies and partners to choose between the U.S. and the rules-based order it helped create.  He argues that a strategy of waiting out Trump is not viable: https://www.policymagazine.ca/the-allies-dilemma-responding-to-a-second-trump-term/

Canada and Cooperative Threat Reduction: “Canada can draw inspiration from past summits during G7 presidency”
Lloyd Axworthy, Allan Rock, and Manulak published an article in the Hill Times on Canada’s upcoming G7 presidency.  They argued that Canada should use this opportunity to strengthen and reinforce the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction financially and institutionally. This was a big Canadian initiative in 2002 and has played a key part ever since. It has an important role to play, including in enabling the green energy transition and supporting the Sustainable Development Goals. The link is here, with  a podcast on this here.

Contact: Michael W. Manulak, Associate Professor
Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University

www.michaelmanulak.com

CPG CLIMATE REPORTS: Submission to Environment and Climate Change Canada

Posted on editor

Canadian Pugwash Group has submitted four reports to Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, and the environment ministers of all the provinces and territories. These reports are the culmination of significant work by, and collaboration between, Metta Spencer (Project Save the World and CPG Board member) and the climate crisis committee of Canadian Pugwash Group.* 

The four submitted reports: 
LOW CARBON CONCRETE    ARCTIC COOLING    SOIL AMENDMENTS    URBAN TREE PLANTING

The covering letter to Minister Guilbeault describes the process:

December 2, 2024

Hon. Steven Guilbeault,
Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada

Dear Minister Guilbeault,

The Canadian Pugwash Group, in collaboration with Project Save the World*, has developed four reports outlining policy options for the Canadian government to address climate change and its critical first-order impacts. These reports focus on Arctic Cooling, Soil Amendments, Urban Tree Planting, and Low-Carbon Concrete, and are attached for your review.

This initiative originated with Metta Spencer of Project Save the World, who conducted a series of 25 hour-long podcasts over the course of a year. These podcasts brought together experts and advocates to discuss practical solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change. The discussions were consolidated into four preliminary summary reports, which can be accessed: here.

Building on these foundational materials, the Canadian Pugwash Group’s Climate Committee reviewed the drafts, assessed recommendations, and synthesized them into actionable policy options. We also incorporated relevant updated research published since the podcasts.

We respectfully submit these reports for your consideration and urge the Government of Canada to take decisive action in addressing the climate crisis.

Sincerely,
Cesar Jaramillo
Chair, Canadian Pugwash Group

*The package of four reports represents significant work, in particular by Metta Spencer (the originator of the project, podcast moderator and initial drafter), but also by the CPG committee (Adele Buckley, Bill Bhaneja, Robin Collins, Michel A. Duguay, David Harries, Ellen Judd, Peter Meincke, Derek Paul, David Price, Shane Roberts.)
The original podcasts involved more than 45 experts and advocates, including:  Adeyemi Adesina, Hashem Akbari, Michael Barnard, Albert Bates, Paul Beckwith,  David Beerling, Joanna Campe, Chris Cheeseman, Brent Constantz, Michael Cook, Robert Cumming, Eric Davies, David Demarey, Michael Diamond,  Gregory Dipple, Clive Elsworth, Bjorn Embren, Peter Fiekowsky, Alan Gadian, Blaz Gasparini, Thomas Goreau, Martin Halliwell, Brian von Herzen, Douglas Hooton, Joyce Hostyn,  Neil Hoult, Benoit Lambert, John Liu, Lawrence Martin, David Mitchell, Lorien Nesbitt, Franz Oeste,  John Orr, Oswald Petersen, Noah Planavsky, David Price, Stephen Salter, Heather Schibli, Karen Scrivener, Stephen Sheppard, Megan Sheremata,  John Stone,  Peter van Straaten, Thomas Vanacore, Peter Wadhams, Leonid Yurganov,  Ryan Zizzo.

Report: Security Options for a Troubled World: CPG/CIPS Policy Conference

Posted on editor

The Canadian Pugwash Group and the Centre for International Policy Studies (CIPS) at the University of Ottawa were pleased to host a public conference entitled “Security Options for a Troubled World”.

Conference Report:
Security Options for a Troubled World_Final

 

 

The conference featured Canadian experts addressing the following topics:

  • “Nuclear Nightmares: How to Revive Arms Control & Disarmament”
  • “Countering the Danger of Autonomous Weapons and Managing the AI Effect”
  • “Constructing the Future of UN Peace Operations”
  • “How to Prevent War in Space”
  • “Curtailing the Global Arms Trade and promoting Common Security”
  • “Re-energizing Canada’s Security Diplomacy”

Recorded videos of the six sessions are now available.
Watch on Youtube to choose the sessions individually: HERE

Security Options for a Troubled World

Statement: “Nuclear Disarmament in Times of Unprecedented Risk”

Posted on editor

 

Five Recommendations Arising From the Roundtable

On October 24, 2024, Canada’s four leading nuclear disarmament organizations—the Canadian Pugwash Group, the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and Project Ploughshares—convened an expert Roundtable on “Nuclear Disarmament in Times of Unprecedented Risk.” This was held in response to rapidly escalating nuclear threats. The convening organizations share the profound conviction that Canada must urgently reassert its voice and leadership in the global disarmament arena.
 
The gravity of today’s nuclear threats, underscored by the heightened possibility of nuclear weapons’ use, demands that Canada act with bold urgency. In our Report, we call on the Government of Canada to reaffirm its role as a constructive middle power by embracing these recommendations. By doing so, Canada can strengthen its legacy of peacebuilding and advance the imperative of nuclear disarmament in times of unprecedented risk. Read the report here: ND4 Report to GoC 2024

Meyer: Dithering over Disarmament – Why we need a PrepCom for SSOD IV

Posted on editor

The following statement was written by Canadian Pugwash Group board member Paul Meyer to draw attention to the lack of advancement in the First Committee on the SSOD (Special Session on Disarmament) agenda. It was also published in Reaching Critical Will’s First Committee Monitor No.5.

As the SCRAP disarmament group notes: As a vocal advocate for the cause of activating the UN Fourth Special Session on Disarmament (SSOD-IV), Amb. (Ret’d) Meyer has been a key figure in our efforts in drafting our Open Letter calling the UNGA to activate an SSOD which has been undersigned by about 150 people and organisations.

Dithering over Disarmament – Why we need a PrepCom for SSOD IV

The convening of the UN’s fourth special session for disarmament (SSOD IV) has become something of a multilateral mirage. Everyone has agreed that it should take place, but when it is approached it fades into the distance, ever out of reach. This state of affairs is not, however, a result of some optical illusion, but a product of deliberate procrastination.

It has been seven years since an Open-Ended Working Group issued a consensus report setting out the objectives and agenda for SSOD IV (the last such special session dates back to 1988). The report, however, left the decision on initiating preparations for the special session to the UN General Assembly. Ever since, Indonesia has been the lead sponsor of an annual resolution that “reiterates its conviction that a special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament can set the future course of action in the field of disarmament, arms control, non-proliferation and related international security matters.” The resolution’s operative paragraphs, however, do not provide for the start of preparations for the special session. Instead the resolution limits itself to “encourag[ing] member states to continue consultations on the next steps for the convening of the fourth special session.”

There is no evidence that any such consultations are actually being held and Indonesia has not indicated that it has ever initiated such consultations or reported on their results. One need not be a cynic of multilateralism to conclude that this nod to further “consultations” is a cop-out and a substitute for concrete action. This sort of sham diplomacy discredits the entire multilateral disarmament enterprise.

UN Secretary-General Guterres recognised the need to “review and reform” the UN’s disarmament machinery in his input to the Summit of the Future. The outcome document from that event, the “Pact for the Future,” recommended that the General Assembly “pursue work that could support preparation of a fourth special session”—albeit a rather diluted version of the direction contained in the penultimate version of the Pact “to start preparations” for SSOD IV. Civil Society also issued an eloquent plea for states to get serious about initiating preparations for SSOD IV in its October 16 statement to the First Committee.

A fourth special session will not be a panacea for the current malaise of multilateral disarmament, but it could afford an opportunity to submit the existing arrangement to critical scrutiny and prompt remedial action to render the machinery more productive. We will never know what SSOD IV could produce as long as states are content to kick the can down First Avenue. If Indonesia is not ready to take meaningful action on the convening of SSOD IV, it should past its leadership baton on the issue to another Non-Aligned Movement member state who will.

Paul Meyer
Canadian Pugwash Group/Simon Fraser University

Roche: Is the abolition of nuclear weapons really an impossible dream?

Posted on editor

Originally published in The Hill Times
OPINION | BY DOUGLAS ROCHE | October 17, 2024
It’s certainly not a task for the faint-hearted. But I think Nelson Mandela got it right when he encouraged humanity to keep moving forward towards peace and justice: ‘It always seems impossible until it’s done.’

EDMONTON—The Nobel Peace Prize committee last week shone a global spotlight on what many consider an impossible dream: the abolition of nuclear weapons. The Norwegian committee awarded the 2024 prize to the Japanese organization, Nihon Hidankyo, a grassroots movement of atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who call themselves the hibakusha. For nearly 80 years, the hibakusha have pressed governments to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

What has happened? The nine nuclear weapon states have made nuclear weapons a permanent core of their arsenals. They are all modernizing their nuclear stocks. Nuclear disarmament treaties and negotiations have collapsed. The international legal system is coming apart and a new nuclear arms race is under way. The dream of nuclear disarmament appears dead.

A few days after the 2024 Nobel announcement, the five permanent members of the Security Council—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China—announced they would meet in New York to cool down nuclear tensions. This is cold comfort, for, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, warns, “Not since the worst days of the Cold War has the spectre of nuclear weapons cast such a dark shadow.” He demanded that nuclear-armed states, which currently possess 12,121 nuclear weapons, “stop gambling with humanity’s future” and honour their commitments and obligations for nuclear disarmament. He listed the abolition of nuclear weapons as the highest priority in his recently published “New Agenda for Peace.”

The nuclear weapon states have made a mockery of their commitments. They all signed on to the 1970  Non-Proliferation Treaty’s provision that comprehensive negotiations toward the elimination of nuclear weapons be pursued, but did nothing. They ignored the 1996 ruling of the International Court of Justice that such negotiations be concluded. Then they objected to the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition  of Nuclear Weapons which outlaws possession of nuclear weapons.

The nuclear powers have given the back of their hand to nuclear weapons abolitionists. The U.S. plans to spend $1.7-trillion over the next 30 years to restock its nuclear fleet. Russia threatens to use its nuclear weapons if Ukraine and its NATO backers fire on Russia’s strategic assets. China is expanding its present nuclear stockpile and aims to have more than 1,000 operable nuclear weapons by 2030. It is all madness.

All the nations of the world collaborated in producing a Pact for the Future at the recent Summit of the Future. The pact said states would “recommit to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.” However, no specifics were mentioned. The major states have no intention of fulfilling their discredited promises. The hypocrisy is stunning.

Canada had a chance to speak about all this when the UN Disarmament Committee met for its annual session in New York. But the Canadian speech was bereft of any meaningful comment on the dire nuclear predicament humanity faces today.

Why is the prize of a nuclear weapons-free world so hard to achieve? Will the powerful governments always thwart those who see that a perpetual pileup of nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to a humanitarian catastrophe? These questions constantly disturb me.

There have been appeals galore to the Canadian government to step up and work with like-minded nations to replace the doomed military doctrine of nuclear deterrence with concrete plans for common security. But Canada won’t move away from the NATO line that nuclear weapons are the “supreme guarantee” of security.

A number of prominent Canadians are trying to break through the wall the Canadian government has built around itself. Last year, four major nuclear disarmament groups in Canada convened an extraordinary roundtable of experts, who urged the government to stand up against the intimidation tactics of the nuclear powers. “In the new multi-polar world, which is fraught with confrontation, states must return to the use of trust-building communication to advance mutual security interests,” the meeting said.

The experts will meet in Ottawa Oct. 24 for a second special roundtable to address the growing role of nuclear weapons in world politics and the risk to human security everywhere. Their report to the government should at least be seriously considered, for it will be signed by experienced Canadian nuclear disarmament leaders, including Robin Collins, Bev Delong, Walter Dorn, Cesar Jaramillo, Firdaus Kharas, Sylvie Lemieux, Peggy Mason, Paul Meyer, Alex Neve, Tariq Rauf, Ernie Regehr, Jennifer Simons and Erika Simpson.

It is a sad truism that appeals to conscience have a hard time being heard amidst today’s political clamour. That is why the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the hibakusha is so important. The prestige of the Nobel has lifted up the voices of those who have inspired and educated people around the world to the horrors of nuclear war. Their costly experience has been used, as the Nobel committee said, “to cultivate hope and engagement for peace.”

Is the abolition of nuclear weapons really an impossible dream? It’s certainly not a task for the faint-hearted. But I think Nelson Mandela got it right when he encouraged humanity to keep moving forward towards peace and justice: “It always seems impossible until it’s done.”

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

Dorn: Canada’s peacekeeping commitments have plunged to an all-time low

Posted on editor

Walter Dorn is a professor of defence studies at the Royal Military College and the Canadian Forces College. He is a board member of Canadian Pugwash Group.

In 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared that Canada was “back” on the international stage; not long after, his government promised to “renew Canada’s commitment to United Nations peace operations,” and pledged to send significantly more personnel. That’s important for UN peacekeeping, because it is only effective when countries from around the world contribute skilled military and police officers as part of broader political efforts to resolve the underlying causes of conflicts. And of course, many conflicts cry out for military observers and peace implementation forces around the world right now.

Yet our contribution of uniformed personnel to UN peacekeeping is currently at the lowest point since 1956, when Canada led the creation of the first peacekeeping force. According to the UN’s latest figures, Canada now provides only 26 personnel – just 17 military and nine police officers – out of the total of 62,000 uniformed peacekeepers. While Canada was once the world’s number-one contributor, it is now ranked 76th.

At a peacekeeping ministerial meeting in Vancouver in 2017, Mr. Trudeau pledged to provide a quick reaction force to the UN, but that promise remains unfulfilled, despite the desperate need. Even when the United States pushed Ottawa to pony up four years later, Canada did not even register the pledge in the UN’s readiness system. And last year, when Washington requested Canadian peacekeepers to combat gangs in Haiti committing mass violence in our own hemisphere, there was strong pushback from our military. (A new UN mission for that troubled island nation has been renewed, but Canada has yet to announce a potential contribution.)

And while Canada’s main push in peacekeeping has been the promotion of women in such operations – in 2017, then-foreign minister Chrystia Freeland established the Elsie Initiative for that purpose – our contribution of female peacekeepers currently numbers only eight women, mostly police. The Canadian military deploys only two women, which fails to meet even the UN’s modest targets.

What can explain this failure?

This is a systemic problem that starts at the top, with a lack of political leadership. Despite the Liberals’ many pledges over the years, Mr. Trudeau has not made peacekeeping a priority. In fact, Stephen Harper’s government had a monthly average contribution of twice as many peacekeepers. With much greater priority being given to NATO within the Department of National Defence, our commitment to the UN has been neglected. In the 1990s, Canada provided nine UN mission commanders, but none since. Little intellectual leadership has been shown in peacekeeping doctrine, planning or policy – areas in which Canada once excelled. Peacekeeping training in the Canadian Armed Forces has declined to a small fraction of what it was at the turn of the century.

There are a few bright spots, however. The Royal Canadian Air Force currently provides transportation assistance – a C-130 Hercules aircraft – for 15 days every three months in Africa, where the largest UN missions are located. A Canadian diplomat continues to chair the working group that prepares the annual report of the UN’s special committee on peacekeeping. Canada continues to push for the Vancouver Principles on peacekeeping and the prevention of child soldiers. The Elsie Initiative, after many stalled years, is helping other countries increase their female participation, even if it fails to do the same at home, and even though Canadians continue to make clear in public opinion polling that peacekeeping is their top priority for Canada’s military.

Canada’s diminished role has occurred as the UN has reduced its peacekeeping presence overall since 2016. The number of peacekeepers deployed in the field is almost half of what it was in 2016, when Donald Trump became U.S. president and pushed for a reduction in the peacekeeping presence and cost. But while there have been fewer opportunities for Canadians to serve in the field, Canada could still provide two to three times the number of peacekeeping personnel that it currently does.

Despite the failures of government, Canada has what it takes to be an excellent contributor to peacekeeping. Our multicultural population, lack of great-power aspirations, absence of historical colonial baggage in other countries, and past leadership in peacekeeping means that Canada remains viewed as a desirable peacekeeping contributor in many parts of the world. In addition, the men and women of Canada’s military and police forces have shown great ability in bringing peace to conflict-ridden zones.

A strong foundation exists. So there is still hope that Canada can once again become a prolific and dependable peacekeeping nation.

EN / FR