Home Page Election 2019 News Opinion Foreign Policy Politics Policy Legislation Lobbying Hill Life & People Hill Climbers Heard On The Hill Calendar Archives Classifieds
Hill Times Events Inside Ottawa Directory Hill Times Store Hill Times Careers The Wire Report The Lobby Monitor Parliament Now
Subscribe Free Trial Reuse & Permissions Advertising
Log In

Why Canada should rethink its stance on nuclear arms

By Earl Turcotte      

It’s time for global action and for Canada to engage in creative, muscular nuclear diplomacy.

Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion speaks at the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on March 2. UN photograph by Elma Okic
Share a story
The story link will be added automatically.

CARP, ONT.—Somewhat paradoxically, as humanity has developed ever more effective ways to wage war, we have also established a significant body of international law that limits the means and methods of engaging in armed conflict, leading to the partial or full prohibition of numerous weapons.

The Strasbourg Agreement of 1675 banned the use of poisoned bullets. Later came bans on spike pits, hollow point bullets, and balloon bombs.

More recently, there was the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which banned booby traps, weapons that produce non-detectable fragments, blinding laser weapons, and incendiary weapons.

In the late 1990s, Canada led the world in establishing the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines. A decade later, the Oslo Process resulted in a total ban on cluster munitions.

Civil society groups have now launched a campaign to pre-emptively ban autonomous robotic weapons (killer robots). States and civil society groups are monitoring developments in cyber and neurological weapons.

The world has banned all manner of chemical and biological weapons as well.

There has also been some progress with respect to nuclear weapons as well.

The Seabed Arms Control Treaty of 1971 prevents the deployment of nuclear weapons on the ocean floor.

The Moon Treaty of 1979 prohibits placing nuclear weapons on the moon.

And five nuclear-weapon-free zones have been established in: Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and Africa, in total, involving 115 of 195 countries of the world and almost 40 per cent of the world’s population.

What is missing—and desperately needed now—is a legally binding instrument that universally bans nuclear weapons, eliminates global nuclear stockpiles, and establishes effective means of verification to ensure compliance.

On Oct. 27, member states of the United Nations voted on an Austrian-led resolution that mandates the negotiation of a new nuclear weapons treaty that would do exactly that: finally outlaw nuclear weapons. It passed with an overwhelming majority of 123 states voting in favour. Notably, China, India, and Pakistan abstained, and North Korea voted yes.

Shockingly, Canada was one of only 38 countries to vote against this historic initiative. This happened despite our 46-year-old legal obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue total nuclear disarmament; despite an all-party motion passed unanimously by Canadian Members of Parliament and Senators in 2010 to “deploy a major worldwide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear disarmament;” and despite the fact that there has been no progress on nuclear disarmament in more than two decades.

I offer seven reasons why Canada should reconsider this short-sighted, obstructionist position and support—even lead—this historic negotiation process:

  • The status quo is unsustainable. Given rising international tensions and the increased likelihood of nuclear terrorism, it is naive to think we can avoid nuclear catastrophe so long as any nuclear weapons exist.
  • A comprehensive nuclear weapons convention can be negotiated with or without the engagement (at this stage) of nuclear-weapons states. They can come on board later, when they are ready.
  • Creating new international law will further stigmatize nuclear weapons and increase pressure on nuclear-weapons states to give them up.
  • NATO states can pursue nuclear disarmament without jeopardizing membership in NATO; indeed, effective partnership in NATO demands reform of NATO’s security doctrine, eliminating the nuclear option.
  • Nuclear disarmament can be pursued without upsetting the international “balance of power.” Improved collective, common security measures can and must be part of the mix to ensure that international stability is maintained before, during, and after nuclear disarmament occurs.
  • In this regard, no one is proposing unilateral disarmament or NATO nuclear disarmament absent other nuclear powers; rather, there should be a multilateral approach implicating all nuclear powers concurrently.
  • Finally, it’s 2016, 71 years after the first atomic bombs were dropped. It is time for global action and for Canada to engage in creative, muscular nuclear diplomacy.

Earl Turcotte is a former Canadian and UN disarmament diplomat living in Carp, Ont.

The Hill Times

Politics This Morning

Get the latest news from The Hill Times

Politics This Morning

Your email has been added. An email has been sent to your address, please click the link inside of it to confirm your subscription.

Reboot of Trudeau ‘from sunny to serious’ a recognition Canadians want a serious prime minister, say politicos

News|By Abbas Rana
‘It's almost like we're seeing a new prime minister,’ says Jennifer Stewart, CEO Of Syntax Strategies.

No more shush deals: Senators ready to press for accountability, harassment reforms once Parliament returns

A Senate subcommittee approved a new policy for dealing with harassment in the Red Chamber before Christmas.

Former diplomats and experts at odds over potential Canadian re-engagement with Tehran

News|By Neil Moss
Some believe that Canada needs to engage globally including with countries that it doesn't agree with, but others say restoring diplomatic relations with Iran will be viewed as a reward.

PCO, Canada’s high commissioner to U.K. likely consulted in royal couple’s plans to move here part time, say experts

News|By Mike Lapointe
Multiple government departments remain quiet on any role they’ve played in the royal couple’s plans to move to Canada part time.

Ottawa to give $25,000 in ‘immediate assistance’ per victim to Canadian families affected by downing of Ukraine International Flight 752

News|By Palak Mangat
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has enlisted Independent Senator Stan Kutcher, an expert on mental health, to provide advice on how to support the grieving families.

Canada Proud’s Jeff Ballingall joins O’Toole leadership team

The Canada Proud Facebook page, which is followed by more than 190,000 people, posted a glowing quote about Mr. O'Toole from a column by Toronto Sun columnist Brian Lilley.

Public servants still waiting to engage with public service renewal parl sec

News|By Mike Lapointe
Liberal MP Omar Alghabra is the ‘first parliamentary secretary to be tasked to exercise leadership in this area,’ according to the Prime Minister's Office, but unions say they haven’t heard from him yet.

Trudeau set right tone in the days after Flight 752 downing, say foreign policy experts

News|By Neil Moss
Trudeau's comments have underpinned Canada's interests-based foreign policy, says former diplomat Colin Robertson.

One patrol ship and 118 Crown vehicles vandalized, part of $24.2-million in lost property in 2018-19

Federal court pay outs totalled roughly $28.1-million in 2018-19, including a roughly $10-million court award paid out by Global Affairs Canada under NAFTA’s Chapter 11.
Your group subscription includes premium access to Politics This Morning briefing.