Finishing the job: Canada and nuclear abolition.

In the past year, a number of remarkable developments have taken place concerning the future of nuclear weapons:

* In 1995, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was indefinitely extended on the basis of a set of principles, including "systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons." A review process with annual preparatory meetings, starting in 1997, was set in place.

* On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice (World Court) issued an Advisory Opinion that the use of nuclear weapons would generally contravene the principles and rules of humanitarian law. Although the Court believed it could not determine definitively whether there might be a circumstance of extreme self-defence in which nuclear weapons could be used lawfully, they did decide that all use and threat of use of these weapons must comply with international law. Also, the highest legal body in the world has said, unanimously and clearly, that governments must not only pursue but conclude negotiations leading to total nuclear disarmament. [See article in the June 1996 issue of the Monitor.]

* On August 8, 1996, a group of 28 nations tabled in the Conference on Disarmament a three-phase Program of Action for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

* On August 14, 1996, the Australian government-sponsored Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, composed of 17 leading international figures, state "Nuclear weapons pose an intolerable threat to all humanity and its habitat" and urged the nuclear-weapons countries to commit themselves, immediately and unequivocally, to eliminating all nuclear weapons. [See article on pages 15-16 of this issue.]

* On September 10, 1996, the United Nations General Assembly, adopted and opened for signature a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that, if ratified, would end nuclear weapons testing. The vote was 158 in favour with three opposed (India, Libya, Bhutan) and five abstentions (Cuba, Lebanon, Mauritius, Syria, Tanzania). To become international law, the treaty must be ratified by the 44 countries possessing nuclear reactors.

* In 1995, a group of non-governmental organizations launched Abolition 2000; the goal is to secure the political will and commitment of the world's governments to complete negotiations by the year 2000 on an international convention that will set a firm timetable for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. The Abolition 2000 statement has now been signed by more than 600 organizations around the world, including some two dozen in Canada. The Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons has been formed and includes: Artistes Pour La Paix, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Canadian Peace Alliance, Canadian Pugwash Group, End the Arms Race, First Unitarian Congregation of Ottawa Social Responsibility Committee, Group of 78, Lawyers for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival, Project Ploughshares, Science for Peace, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, Voice of Women, World Federalists.

The Canadian Network sent a Brief, "Canada's Role in the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons" to the Canadian Government, recommending that the government:

1. Initiate an immediate review of the legality of all Canada's nuclear-related activities in the light of the World Court Advisory Opinion and move quickly to end all activities of questionable legality.

2. Provide a reference to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to study the requirements for the abolition of nuclear weapons, including appropriate ways to disengage Canada from present nuclear weapons commitments. The Committee should receive briefs from the public and make recommendations.

3. At the 1996 UNGA, work with the sponsors of a Nuclear Weapons Convention to frame the resolution to accord with the World Court Opinion that negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons must not only begin but conclude.

4. At the 1997 Preparatory Committee of the NPT review process, seek, with a coalition of like-minded States, an unequivocal commitment of the NWS to eliminate their nuclear weapons with a definable program.

5. Advance the Canadian-led verification work at the United Nations and particularly the findings of the 1995 report of Government Experts: "There is a strong imperative for the United Nations to discharge effectively the verification responsibilities that are increasingly a part of its role in the maintenance of peace and security and to provide appropriate services to Member States in the field of verification in all its aspects" (emphasis added).

Cross-Canada discussions

Recognizing that a "window of opportunity" has been opened to obtain that which during the Cold War years seemed impossible - the abolition of nuclear weapons - Project Ploughshares initiated a series of roundtable discussions in 18 Canadian cities in 10 provinces throughout September 1996. With the support of the Anti-Nuclear War Fund, Project Ploughshares, working with local organizing groups, met with a range of community leaders to inform them on the latest developments in the world-wide effort to eliminate nuclear weapons, to raise awareness of these issues, and to solicit views on ways in which individuals and communities can encourage the Canadian Government to move forward on this issue.

A total of 404 persons in a range of occupations attended the roundtables, including: Members of Parliament, Members of Provincial Legislatures, mayors, city councilors, bishops, clergy, university professors, teachers, physicians, lawyers, judges, journalists and editors, First Nations leaders, labour leaders, directors of foundations, peace activists, school board trustees and administrators, students. Some business people attended but not as many as were invited (or hoped for). Several military officers were invited but none attended.

By engaging a wide range of community leaders and activists, including persons and constituencies not usually associated with disarmament advocacy, the roundtables were intended to make the point that all levels of communities (from the international to the local) have an opportunity and responsibility to face the reality of the nuclear threat and to demand concrete action.

The discussions confirmed that a broad cross-section of Canadian society would enthusiastically welcome and really behind clear leadership by the Canadian government in working immediately - not in the distant future - to secure an international nuclear weapons abolition program.

It happened that, just as the roundtables were beginning, Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy posted on the Department's home page on the Internet (www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/english/foreignp/disarm/disarm.htm) three questions, soliciting the Canadian public's views on how Canada should respond to the World Court Advisory Opinion. The questions revealed that the Government is, at least informally, reviewing its position on nuclear weapons. Thus, Mr. Axworthy's questions became an added incentive for participants at the roundtables to express their views. The comments made at the roundtables, incorporated into this report, constitute a significant response to Mr. Axworthy. [The latest "20-Minute Peace Workout," on page 24, also calls for responses to the questions.]

Public knowledge

There was sense of amazement, widely expressed at the roundtables, of how little the general public seems to know about the important events over the past year, which have restored nuclear weapons to a central issue on the international agenda. During the Cold War years, with their incessant nuclear arms buildup, a fear that the arms race was getting out of hand galvanized the peace movement. With the end of the Cold War and reductions in strategic weapons taking place between the United States and Russia, the nuclear issue faded from public attention. Even the indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty - which made permanent the obligation of States to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament - received little attention. The recent round of French and Chinese nuclear weapons testing produced protests, but generally the media is focused on the sequential crises that have dotted the landscape of the 1990s. The Advisory Opinion of the World Court, a momentous event in the 51-year history of nuclear weapons, was relegated to the inside pages.

Thus there is today little public opinion clamouring for the Canadian Government to foster and promote a comprehensive program for nuclear weapons elimination. On the other hand, there is certainly no public opinion for the retention of nuclear weapons. Mr. Axworthy's questions have been inserted into a climate that, if not a vacuum, is passive. Many participants found the Axworthy questions to have been posed in a convoluted way, requiring a background on technical details that many participants do not possess. In that sense, the Axworthy questions were seen as intimidating and seemed to imply that Canadian Government policy, as now set out, should continue to be followed in the light of the World Court's decision.

But when the situation is laid out - the World Court's call for the conclusion of nuclear disarmament negotiations and the untenability of the continued possession of nuclear weapons by the five permanent members of the Security Council while the rest of the world is proscribed from obtaining nuclear weapons - a sense of urgency for action emerged among the participants. The Government's concern about Canada's response to the World Court, as expressed in the Axworthy questions, then became apparent to the participants. This led to discussions of more education programs and efforts to get the media to pay more attention to an issue that is central to the post-Cold War global security agenda.

It was noted that the Internet (many of the participants said they were using it) provides a communications revolution that bypasses the mainline media in the obtaining of information. Thus, people have the potential for being better informed today than over. On the other hand, obtaining information on the Internet requires a prior motivation to seek out the information. The public is certainly not yet at that stage. Hence public opinion, still largely formed by the mainline media, continues to be weak on the vital work of war prevention. Many participants said the lack of active public opinion should not be used by the Government as an excuse not to take a strong stand on implementing the World Court's opinion that nuclear weapons abolition is essential.

Public education which leads to action was seen as essential to the Abolition 2000 campaign. Local level organizing is needed to educate people and challenge international power structures which maintain authority through militarism and structural violence. The resulting democratization of the creating of security policy will result in the rejection of military-based security in favour of human-based security. The abolition of nuclear weapons will logically follow. ...

Step-by-step vs. comprehensive

Canada has consistently said that it works on a step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament: e.g., support for reductions, NPT, CTBT. But step-by-step has no definable goal and allows for the continued possession of nuclear weapons and their refinement well into the 21st century. Roundtable participants noted that "step-by-step" is not what the World Court, the Canberra Commission or the Group of 28 nations are calling for. These bodies note that a comprehensive program - a framework - is needed based on an unequivocal commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to go to zero. Once such an unequivocal commitment is made then, of course, steps are necessary to move the process along. Such steps can be measured against the goal to determine the rate of progress, which is the key element underlying the quinquennial reviews of the implementation of the indefinitely-extended NPT, starting in 2000.

Roundtable participants gave emphatic support to the Canadian Network's call for Canada to support a comprehensive approach to nuclear disarmament, which would be signaled by voting for an immediate start to negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

Many States have already voted at the UN for a timebound program for nuclear weapons elimination. The Western nuclear-weapon States and NATO have stoutly resisted this. That is why Abolition 2000 has called for the negotiation by 2000 of a program for nuclear disarmament. Participants generally agreed that it is not the actual year that zero is reached that is critical to the survival of the NPT, rather that a commitment be made now to the goal to give some practical meaning to the nuclear-weapon States' present commitment to "ultimate" nuclear disarmament. ...

Values of Canadians

Many participants noted that the nuclear weapons abolition issue speaks directly to the values of Canadians. We pride ourselves on being a peaceful people, though when the circumstances of the 20th century demanded, we fought for our liberty. But with the rise of the United Nations, international law, and institutions and mechanisms (e.g., peacekeeping, verification techniques) dedicated to building the conditions for peace, recourse to war to resolve disputes has lost any attractiveness it ever had for Canadians. Left to itself today, it is unlikely Canada would join any military alliance or support the maintenance of nuclear weapons. The national consciousness is alert to promoting peace (through the UN instruments), not to preparing for war.

There was a clear expression of opinion at the roundtables that the Canadian government, caught so often in competing pressures that result in ambiguities of policy-making, should devote more of the available resources to peace and development, rather than defence. For example, there was considerable puzzlement, even resentment, at Canada still maintaining a $10.9-billion budget for defence (which supports policies of combat-readiness in land, sea and air) which is down only 16 per cent from the Cold War peak spending years. At the same time, Canada's Official Development Aid budget (as a hallmark of our involvement with struggling developing countries) has been slashed 31 per cent to $2.39-billion. Is not militarism still driving the federal budget? Is not this thinking the same thinking that advocates a status quo position on nuclear weapons in which Canada works for disarmament while voting against comprehensive nuclear abolition - thus acquiescing in the maintenance of nuclear weapons into the indefinite future?

It was noted at the roundtables that the ambiguity in Canada's position on nuclear weapons reflects, in some ways, the ambiguity in Canadians themselves. For example, while professing to scorn violence, we have become inured to violence - on the streets, in our institutions, in our entertainment. It is little wonder that we give so little thought to the violence we share in being part of a system that threatens to use nuclear weapons, thus killing countless individuals who have every bit as much a right to life as we do. Several participants thought that it is unlikely we can root nuclear weapons out of our military system until we root violence out of our society.

These discussions led to the general recognition of nuclear weapons as the pinnacle of a system of violence which increasingly has economic overtones as well as military; and the further recognition that the subject of nuclear weapons and violence constitutes the supreme moral issue of the day. Many participants (not only clergy) called upon the churches, temples and mosques of Canada to do much more to sensitize Canadians to the effects of the toleration of violence. In this respect, the need for community-based organizations to speak out against violence - at home and abroad, through economic as well as military means - was emphasized.

The roundtables demonstrated that Canadian values are firmly rooted in the pursuit of peace. Significant cross-sections of Canadian society would welcome and rally behind a clear commitment by the Government that it will work immediately - not in the distant future - to secure a nuclear weapons abolition program.

Actions taken

The roundtables fostered a range of individual and community actions:

1. Many persons decided to write directly to Foreign Affairs Minister Axworthy to respond to his questions.

2. Copies of a petition were taken by many participants with the intention of obtaining 25 signatures on each petition for delivery to a local MP and subsequent presentation in Parliament. [Copies of the petition can be obtained from the Ploughshares national office.] The operative paragraph of the petition reads:

THEREFORE your petitioners pray and request that Parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

3. In several cities, a resolution was sent by the roundtable to the local city council calling for a municipal request to the Government of Canada to:

Support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

Some city councilors and mayors undertook to take this resolution to the Canadian Federation of Municipalities for national action.

4. Many participants said they would bring the ideas expressed at the roundtables to their own associations and try to foster:

- School speakers

- Youth peace conferences

- Living room meetings with videos and discussion guides

- Lesson aids for teachers.

5. Some editors said they would welcome participants writing short op-ed pieces for the local newspaper.

6. Some Members of Legislatures said they would prepare Private Members' Motions supporting the goals of Abolition 2000.

7. Some participants asked Project Ploughshares to consider holding a conference of NGOs from the United States, Mexico, and Canada to raise the profile of the abolition issue in North America and foster joint actions. It was noted that such a conference would support the efforts of NGOs in the US.

8. Several participants said they would, with their organizations, plan community events to mark Disarmament Week, October 21-25, 1996.

9. Some participants undertook to suggest to local Legions that they might evolve from "memory banks for war" to "symbols of peace."

10. Some roundtables said they would like to meet again to review the Canadian government's progress on nuclear weapons abolition steps.