CNANW Meeting, May 2014

Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (CNANW) Meeting
May 13 and 14, 2014

Representatives of 10 of the CNANW’s member groups met in Ottawa for a lively update on recent progress and a highly informed discussion on the proposals for legal options with respect to nuclear weapons.

Paul Dewar, M.P., recently elected Global Co-President of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), joined us to provide a briefing on recent work of that group.  He had participated in the recent Annual Assembly of PNND in Washington in February 25-27, 2014.  We are pleased to hear of the appointment of two new CoChairpersons of PNND Canada, Linda Duncan, M.P. (NDP) and Blaine Calkins, M.P. (Cons.) both Albertans. Mr. Dewar encouraged us to continue with education of the public and of MPs through direct meetings and especially fora such as the Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs and National Defence.

Good news was shared of an Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) resolution from the March 20, 2014 meeting that involved representatives of 160 Parliaments. Blaine Calkins M.P. of Canada worked for this resolution called Toward a Nuclear Weapon Free World: The Contribution of Parliaments. One of the recommendations was that “parliaments urge their governments to start negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention or on a package of agreements to help achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world.” PNND are exploring through national conferences how to implement the resolution.  Hedy Fry M.P. is working through the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to support PNND initiatives.

The people of the Marshall Islands are suing all nine nuclear-armed states.  Background on the case and information for the media is available from Nuclear Age Peace Foundation as linked on this quite incredible David and Goliath case. We need to determine if CNANW (or its individual member groups will endorse the action, and identify any other ways Canadians can support the action.  There is a possibility that individual affirmations might be filed with the court.  The court has yet to determine the process.

We received briefings on the recent NPT PrepCom meeting and the Nayarit, Mexico meeting on humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

We are pleased to note that there are now over 750 Order of Canada members supporting Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

CNANW is aiming primarily to communicate to the public and the government our deep concern over the need for Nuclear Weapons Convention by organizing activities

1) for Hiroshima/Nagasaki commemorations on Aug. 6 and 9th
and
2) then during the period  September 21 (International Day for Peace) and September 26 (International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons).  Project Ploughshares is willing to continue to upload worship resources for all faith groups at its website so that faith communities across Canada can have materials to use for either the International Day of Peace or the International Day for the Total Elimination for Nuclear Weapons. We hope to encourage observance of these days in all faith groups.

Thereafter we will focus on preparation for the NPT Review Conference in the spring of 2015 and the spring or fall federal election.

Our lengthiest discussion was on the Ban Treaty proposal. We had the benefit of highly informed input from three former Ambassadors for Disarmament and several other very senior experts with experience with treaty negotiations.  The Ban Treaty proponents are calling for a legal instrument setting out a prohibition against use, possession (etc.) of nuclear weapons.  But that instrument will not set out a process for verified elimination of nuclear weapons since this would require buy-in from nuclear-dependent states, which have made it clear that they consider it “premature”.  The anticipated Nuclear Weapons Convention will call for both prohibitions and a process of verified elimination of nuclear weapons.  A paper was circulated in advance setting out the implications of the Ban Treaty proposal for our work. Concern was expressed about the Ban Treaty being redundant, likely to divert scarce NGO time and resources, likely to cause confusion, and possibly disillusionment among the public.  Others argued that the Ban Treaty proposal would not only engage the public and provide a tool for progress, but might support the longstanding pursuit of a NWC, which seems impossible to achieve in the current state of affairs.

The meeting accepted a proposal that 1) CNANW should take the position that the ban treaty could encourage progress toward a multilateral treaty with specific timelines for nuclear disarmament.  2) While individual CNANW member groups may choose to emphasize a Ban Treaty or the NWC, they are encouraged to be informed on implications of their options to practice “truth in advocacy” in public education and to clarify what process and results are being sought (thus, a ban with or without the elimination of nuclear weapons).  3) As a network, CNANW will continue to focus on a Nuclear Weapons Convention.  4)  Activists are encouraged to call on all states to comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, recognizing that the prohibitions and safeguards it creates are restricting the spread of nuclear weapons.

Congratulations to Doug Roche on the launch of his new book Peacemakers: How People Around the World Are Building a World Free of War.

For more information on the work of CNANW, please contact Bev Delon  at bevdelong [at] shaw.ca

The Cuban Missile Crisis, Iran, and the value of negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, Oct 2012

The Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons met on Oct. 19, 2012 in Ottawa on the 50th Anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  This report is written to provide you with the key lessons from the meeting.

What are the lessons of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis for Iran and the value of pursuing urgent negotiations on nuclear disarmament? The analysis presented by Prof. Erika Simpson of the Department of Political Science at Western University explained some of the ‘new lessons’ revisionists are putting forward concerning the Cuban missile crisis fifty years later, now that the historical records and transcripts are being fully revealed. It discussed the implications of these sorts of ‘lessons’ for ‘realists’–who continue to support nuclear deterrence– and ‘idealists’ who counsel urgent nuclear disarmament. Then Prof. Simpson considered the implications of all these types of lessons for the present-day stand-off between Iran and the rest of the international community, especially the United States and Israel, for deterrence and arms control negotiations. She argued that the principal lesson of the Cuban missile crisis, interpreted fifty years later, is that disarmament negotiations need to be urgently pursued now, not during or in the wake of a similar nuclear crisis besetting the world.

In a comment from the floor, Dr. Walter Dorn of Canadian Forces College advised that research in the UN archives that he and Robert Pauk have completed has shown that President Kennedy in fact was fearful during the Cuban Missile Crisis that his actions might trigger a nuclear war.  He sought the assistance of UN Secretary General U Thant to mediate and this mediation occurred successfully.  Contrary to frequent reports of the crisis, Krushchev did not “blink” but rather engaged with U Thant in a deal under which the Soviet Union would withdraw its navy in exchange for the US withdrawing its missiles from Turkey.

Of concern to the group was the recent announcement by the Government of Canada of the closure of the Canadian Embassy in Iran.  Senator Roche, Chairperson of the Middle Powers Initiative questioned “what would have happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis if the Kennedy Administration had broken diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union when the US discovered Soviet missile sites in Cuba?”  He stressed that international security is not served by breaking relations with Iran. He also queried Canada tolerating nuclear weapons in the hands of Israel, India and Pakistan but objecting to Iran. We need strong diplomacy toward nuclear disarmament if we want to influence world security.

Mr. Paul Dewar, the NDP Foreign Affairs Critic, reported on his recent trip to Kazakhstan as part of a delegation from Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.  He said most of them were unaware of the human suffering resulting in that area due to the legacy of Soviet nuclear testing in Semipalitinsk.  During his visit on August 29th, thousands of people were out to line the streets to observe somberly the International Day Against Nuclear Testing.  Mr. Dewar was shocked to see volumes of detailed records in Russian setting out the medical results of the testing. Recently people have become much more aware of the 2nd and 3rd generational effects of nuclear testing and the extraordinary toll this is having on the lives and health of people living in Kazakhstan, as well as in other locations where nuclear explosions have occurred such as Japan, the Marshall Islands, and in Tahiti and Muroroa in the Pacific.

Both Mr. Dewar and Mr. Alyn Ware, the Global Coordinator for PNND, spoke on the PNND Parliamentarians statement being circulated to encourage parliamentarians to consider a proposal for a Middle East Zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction as a diplomatic and even-handed route toward a more peaceful Middle East.  Alyn Ware  highlighted the powerful role played by the process of establishing nuclear weapon-free zones in the Antarctic, Latin America, the South Pacific, South East Asia, Africa, Mongolia, and most recently Kazakhstan along with 4 of their “stan” neighbours.  (For further information, check the NWFZs website  located at

http://www.opanal.org.)

Climate modeling research conducted by Toon and Roebuck in the US concludes that waiting for a crisis for the start of nuclear negotiations could cause a calamity, for even a small exchange of 100 nuclear weapons between India and Pakistan or in the Middle East might result in climate change resulting in global famine.  (See “Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering”, Scientific American, December, 2009.

So what then are some of the lessons in 2012 from the Cuban missile crisis, considered by many to have been the most dangerous time in our history?  What then have we learned over the past 60 years that teaches us about our security today?

First, the nuclear threat still remains as there are still approximately 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Of these, about 2,000 are on alert, operationally ready be used in under 30 minutes.

Second, the world can be placed at extraordinary risk due to political games leading to military brinkmanship.  Those involved may have serious misperceptions about the facts of the situation and the motives of other parties. Do not assume that leaders will be rational actors during a crisis.

Third, we need to ensure that the UN Secretary General’s capacity to offer his or her good offices remains strong.

Fourth, If we wish to retain a capacity to save humanity and the environment, we need to retain diplomatic lines of communication with other states.  You might contact the Prime Minister your MP and encourage them to reconsider the decision to close the Canadian Embassy in Iran, reminding of the great value of diplomacy for nonviolent solutions in instances of political challenges.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, we cannot wait for this to happen.  We must demand negotiations on nuclear disarmament now.

What else can be done?  The Canadian Senate and Parliament in 2010 passed unanimously an historic motion to:

  • “encourage the Government of Canada to deploy a major world-wide Canadian diplomatic initiative in support of preventing nuclear proliferation and increasing the rate of nuclear disarmament;”

Despite repeated requests and petitions, no such initiative has been deployed by the Government of Canada.  Concerned Canadians are encouraged to contact their MP and inquire what they are doing to encourage negotiations on a ban on nuclear weapons. Likewise, Members of Parliament can be urged to consider realistic options for peace in the Middle East and then invited to sign the  Joint Parliamentary Statement for a Middle East Free from Nuclear Weapons and all other Weapons of Mass Destruction available in English or French.

Round Table on a Global Ban on Nuclear Weapons, Mar 2012

Ottawa, Canada
March 26, 2012

Statement of the organizers of the CNANW Round Table:
English: 2012RTstatementMar26.doc; 2012RTstatementMar26.rtf
en Français: 2012Declaration4avril.doc

Session 1: NPT Preparatory Committee Meeting 2012: Opportunities? Challenges?
Chairperson: Ms. Peggy Mason
Summary of this session: 2012 RT NPT.doc; 2012 RT NPT.pages
Opening Statement: Ms. Isabelle Roy, Director, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Division, DFAIT: RoyMarch26.docx
Panel Responding: The Hon. Doug Roche O.C., Acting Chairperson, Middle Powers Initiative (MPI): RocheMar26.doc and RocheMar26.doc.odt
and Mr. Cesar Jaramillo, Program Officer, Project Ploughshares
Rapporteur: Dr. Anna Jaikaran, Science for Peace

Session 2: Iran and the Nuclear Question
Chairperson: Mr. Fergus Watt, World Federalist Movement – Canada
Panel: Mr. Paul Heinbecker, CIGI Distinguished Fellow: RTIranSession final.doc and RTIranSessionfinal.pages
and Prof. Peter Jones, University of Ottawa: JonesMarch26.doc and JonesMarch26.pages
Rapporteur: Mr. Cesar Jaramillo, Project Ploughshares

Session 3: International Humanitarian Law and Nuclear Weapons: Progress made; Work ahead?
Chairperson: Ms. Janis Alton, Voice of Women
Speaker: Mr. Ilario Maiolo, Senior Legal Advisor, Canadian Red Cross: MaioloMarch26
Panel: Mr. Robin Collins, World Federalist Movement-Canada: CollinsMarch26.doc
and Ms. Debbie Grisdale, CNANW: GrisdaleMarch26.rtf
Rapporteur: Dr. Richard Denton, Physicians for Global Survival (PGS)

Session 4: Next steps for CNANW member groups
Chairpersons: The Hon. Doug Roche O.C. and Ms. Bev Delong
Notes circulated among CNANW member groups

roundtable1

 

Statements


  • Restoring Canada’s Nuclear Disarmament Policies Expert Seminar, February 2008:
    • Event Report (english, pdf)
    • Statement (english, pdf)
    • Séminaire d’experts sur la restitution de leadership Canadiene sur le désarmement nucléaire
    • Déclaration (pdf)

    • Text Box: Vers 2010: Priorités en vue d’un consensus à propos du TNP
      • Rapport de l’Initiative des puissances moyennes, Avril 2007
        [MPI Statement to Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs]
      • Mémoire de l’Initiative des puissances moyennes en prévision de la réunion du Comité préparatoire du TNP qui aura lieu à Vienne, en 2007 [rtf; pdf]

    • Canadians Call for End to Nuclear Weapons in NATO/Des Canadiens exigent la suppression du recours à l’armement nucléaire par l’OTAN:






Signatories/Signataires Academic Statement

Signatories/Signataires Academic Statement

Signatories/Signataires (18 mai/May 18 2010):

Beverly Anderson
Associate Professor Emeritus (retired) 
Faculty of Nursing
University of Calgary

Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford 
Assoc Prof (retired)
School of Child and Youth Care,
University of Victoria.

Hélène Beauchamp
Professeure émérite (retraitée)
École supérieure de théâtre
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Marie Beaulieu Ph.D. Directrice du département de danse Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeur Paul Bélanger
Département d’éducation et formation spécialisées
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeure Colette Bellavance
Faculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé
Université de Sherbrooke

Professor Jordan Bishop (retired)
Department of Humanities
Cape Breton University

Professeure Colette Boky
Prix du Québec, O.C.
Département de musique
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor Katherine Bonathan (retired)
Kwantlen Polytechnical University
Surrey, BC

Professeure Denise Brassard Département d’Études littéraires Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Dr. Carl Braun
Professor Emeritus
Department of Applied Psychology
University of Calgary

Claude Braun, Ph.D.
Professeur titulaire au département de psychologie
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeur André Breton
Département des communications
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Dr. Merlin B. Brinkerhoff
Professor Emeritus
Department of Sociology
University of Calgary

Professeure Anne-Marie Broudehoux
École de design
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)  

Professor Michael Byers
Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law
University of British Columbia

Professor Max Cameron
Dept. of Political Science
University of British Columbia

Debbie Carroll, PhD, MTA Professeure de Musicothérapie Département de musique Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

André F. Charette, Ph.D. Professeur titulaire
Département d’organisation et ressources humaines École des sciences de la gestion (ESG-UQAM)
Université du Québec à Montréal                                                                                                                                              

Dr. Normand Chevrier
Département de biologie
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Dr. Arthur Clark
Professor of Neuropathology
Faculty of Medicine
University of Calgary

Professeur Alessandro Colizzi
École de Design
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Phyllis Creighton
Adjunct faculty
Faculty of Divinity
Trinity College, Toronto

Louis Cyr
Professeur retraité
Département de musique
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Dr. Edwin E. Daniel
Professor Emeritus, Adjunct Professor
Dept. of Pharmacology
University of Alberta

Professor Dayna B. Daniels
Coordinator, Women’s Studies
University of Lethbridge

Professeure Martine Delvaux Études littéraires
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Dr. Emily Doolittle Assistant Professor of Music Composition Cornish College of the Arts – Seattle

Professeur Gilles Dostaler
Département des sciences économiques
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeur François Dragon
Département des sciences biologiques
Université du Québec à Montréal

Professeur Michel Duguay
Ph.D. en physique nucléaire (Yale University)
Département de génie électrique et de génie informatique
Université Laval

Professeure adjointe Carolina Ferrer
Département d’études littéraires
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Trevor Findlay
William and Jeanie Barton Chair in International Affairs
Director, Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance
Professor, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs
Carleton University

Professeur Hervé Fischer
Fondateur de l’Observatoire international du numérique de Montréal
Chercheur Hexagram
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Jean Fisette Professeur associé Département d’études littéraires
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor Ward Flemons
Faculty of Medicine
University of Calgary

Martin Foster
Professeur associé (retraité)
Département de musique
Université du Québec à Montréal

Professeur Jean-Louis Gagnon
Directeur du programme de musique
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Louis Gill
Professeur retraité
Département des sciences économiques
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeure Jacinthe Giroux Département d’éducation et formation spécialisées Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor Trudy Govier 
Department of Philosophy
University of Lethbridge

Professor Donald Grayston
Department of Humanities
Simon Fraser University

Professor Richard Guy
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Calgary

Professeure Nicole Harbonnier-Topin
Département de danse
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor Stoody Harding (ret.)
Past Director of School of Human Justice
University of Regina

Professor  Maureen S. G. Hawkins
Department of English
University of Lethbridge

Professor Yvonne Hébert
Faculty of Education
University of Calgary

Professeur Mario Houde
Département des sciences biologiques
Université du Québec à Montréal

Connie Isenberg, Ph.D., MTA, MT-BC,
FAMI Psychologue et psychanalyste Professeur Musicothérapie Département de musique Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeur titulaire Pierre Jasmin
Département de musique
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeure Catherine Jumarie, Ph.D
Département des sciences biologiques
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor  Catherine Kingfisher
Department of Anthropology
University of Lethbridge

Professor John Kirk
Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies
Cape Breton University

Professeure Julie Lafond
Département des Sciences Biologiques
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeur invité Gérald Larose
École de travail social
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
 
Professeur Pierre Lebuis Département d’éducation et pédagogie Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeur émérite Georges Leroux
Département de philosophie
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeur Jacques Lévesque
Ancien doyen de la faculté de droit et de science politique
Département de sciences politiques
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor Ernest McCullough (retired)
Faculty of of Arts & Science
St Thomas More College,
University of Saskatchewan

Dr. Peter Meincke
President Emeritus
University of Prince Edward Island

Ray Morris
Professor Emeritus of Sociology
York University

Emeritus Professor Ronald Neufeldt
Department of Religious Studies
University of Calgary

Professeure Michèle Nevert
Département d’études littéraires
Présidente du syndicat des professeures et professeurs de l’UQAM
Université du Québec à Montréal

Professor Jacquetta Newman
Chair, Department of Political Science
King’s University College, UWO
 
Dr. Peter Nicholls,
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Essex,
Colchester, Essex

Professor Mark Nitz
Department Chemistry
University of Toronto

Jean-Pierre Noiseux
Professeur associé
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor Emerita Liisa L. North,
Department of Political Science 
York University

Dr Éric Notebaert
Faculté de médecine
Université de Montréal

Prof. James V Penna (ret.)
Faculty of Arts and Science
St. Thomas More College, 
University of Saskatchewan

Professeur émérite Jean-Marc Piotte
Département de science politique
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor Sergei Plekhanov 
Department of Political Science
York University

Professeure Louise Poissant
Doyenne de la Faculté des Arts
Chercheure à Hexagram
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeur Laurent Poliquin Département des Sciences biologiques Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor Richard Price
Director, Graduate Program
Department of Political Science
University of British Columbia

Professeure Dominique Primeau
Département de musique
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor Emeritus James Ramsay
Department of Psychology
McGill University

Eric Rassart, Ph.D. Département des sciences biologiques Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Ernie Regehr O.C.
Adjunct Associate Professor
Peace and Conflict Studies
Conrad Grebel University College
University of Waterloo.

Professor Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg 
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto

Professeur Max Roy
Université du Québec à Montréal
Président de la Fédération québécoise des professeures
et professeurs d’université (FQPPU)

Joanna Santa Barbara
Assoc. Prof. (retired), 
Psychiatry and Peace Studies
McMaster University

Professeure Lucie Sauvé Titulaire de la Chaire de recherche du Canada en éducation relative à l’environnement Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeure Claire Savoie
École des arts visuels et médiatiques
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professor J. Robert Sevick, M.D.
Head, Department of Radiology
Faculty of Medicine
University of Calgary

Professor Elemir Simko
Department of Veterinary Pathology
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Saskatchewan

Dr. Jennifer Simons
Adjunct Professor
School for International Studies
Simon Fraser University

Professor Erika Simpson
Department of Political Science
University of Western Ontario

Professor Emeritus Graham M. Simpson
Department of Plant Sciences
University of Saskatchewan

Dr. Metta Spencer
Professor Emeritus of Sociology
University of Toronto

Professor Hank J. Stam
Department of Psychology
University of Calgary

Professeur Jacques Saint-Pierre Chaire SITQ d’immobilier École des sciences de la gestion Université du Québec à Montréal

Professeure Madeleine Saint-Pierre
retraitée
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Dr. David Swann, M.L.A., 
Leader of the Official Opposition (Alberta)
Former Professor of Public Health,
University of Calgary

Miklós Takács
Professeur associé (retraité)
Département de musique
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Jean-Guy Vaillancourt
Professeur associé au département de sociologie
Prix Michel-Jurdant 2009 de l’ACFAS pour les sciences environnementales
Université de Montréal

Louise Vandelac, Ph.D. Professeure titulaire au département de sociologie et Institut des sciences de l’environnement
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Professeur André Villeneuve
Département de musique
Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Dr. Michael Wallace
Professor Emeritus
Department of Political Science
University of British Columbia

Professor Maureen G. Wilson
Faculty of Social Work
University of Calgary
Professor Ian Winchester
Emeritus Dean
University of Calgary

Professor Melanie A. Woodin
Department of Cell & Systems Biology
Faculty of Arts & Science 
University of Toronto

Professor Andrew Woolley
Dept of Chemistry
University of Toronto

Professor Deborah Zamble
Department of Chemistry
University of Toronto


Toward a Nuclear Weapons Convention: A Role for Canada, Apr 2011

April 11-12, 2011
Brittany Salon, Cartier Place Suite Hotel, 180 Cooper Street, Ottawa, ON

Summary Report: Toward a Nuclear Weapons Convention: A Role for Canada (pdf in english)

Recommendations: (in english; Vers une convention de l’interdiction des armes nucléaires : un rôle pour le Canada: en français)


April 11: “Implementing the UN Secretary-General’s Five Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament”

Program: [here: pdf]

HeadTable podium panaudience

Keynote Speaker: H.E. Ambassador Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, U.N. High Representative for Disarmament “Implementing the UN Secretary-General’s Five Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament” [here: pdf]

Chairpersons: The Hon. Douglas J. Roche O.C., Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament and Mr. Ernie Regehr, O.C., Research Fellow, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, Conrad Grebel University College, University of Waterloo

Respondents:

  • Ambassador Werner Brandstetter, Embassy of Austria [here: pdf]
  • Counsellor Julian Juarez, Embassy of Mexico [here: pdf]
  • Mr. Nicolas Brühl, Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Switzerland [here: pdf]
  • Mr. Clive Wright, Head of Foreign Policy Team, British High Commission, Ottawa [here: pdf]

Acknowledgements: We express our sincere gratitude to the sponsors of this seminar: Canadian Network toAbolish Nuclear Weapons, Canadian Pugwash Group, Physicians for Global Survival,Project Ploughshares, and World Federalist Movement – Canada.


April 12: “Experts’ Seminar”

Agenda: [here: pdf]
Theme: The Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference took note of the UNSecretary-General’s Five-Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament, which proposes, inter alia, “consideration of negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention or agreement on a framework of separate mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a strong system ofverification.”

This seminar is being held to develop a broadly shared understanding of the mainelements and requirements for a global convention to prohibit nuclear weapons; to buildCanadian capacity in the expert and disarmament advocacy community on key issues linkedto advancing the global movement toward a nuclear weapons convention; and to engage theGovernment of Canada to encourage early and concrete support for working toward aNuclear Weapons Convention.


Legal Aspects of a Nuclear Weapons Convention

Elements of a legal architecture for a nuclear weapons prohibition/framework of agreements.Implications of an International Humanitarian Law approach to progress on NWC

Dr John Burroughs
Dr Erika Simpson
Dr Michael Byers

Chairperson: Dr. Erika Simpson, Department of Political Science, University of Western Ontario and Vice-Chair, Canadian Pugwash Group

Speakers : Dr. John Burroughs, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy [here: pdf] Dr. Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law,Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia [here: pdf]


Verification and Compliance Aspects of a Nuclear Weapons Convention

Dr Trevor Findlay
Ms Peggy Mason
Mr Jo Sletback

Chairperson:  Ms. Peggy Mason, former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament and Advisory BoardChair, Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance, Carleton University

Speakers:  Dr. Trevor Findlay, Director, Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance [here: pptx (original) pdf] Mr.  Jo Sletbak, Minister Counsellor/Deputy Head of Mission, Royal Norwegian Embassy [here: pdf]


Luncheon Keynote

Amb. Richard Butler
Ms Bev Delong

Chairperson: Ms. Bev Delong, Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Guest Speaker: H.E. Ambassador Richard Butler, A.C., Chairperson, Middle Powers Initiative [here: pdf]


Political and Security Requirements for a Nuclear Weapons Convention

How can security relationships be used as stepping stones toward a NWC?Delegitimizing Nuclear Weapons through Nuclear Weapons-Free Zones, and Nuclear Doctrines

Mr Ernie Regehr
Mr Simon Rosenblum
Mr Simon Rosenblum, Mr Ernie Regehr, Hon. Landon Pearson

Chairperson: The Honourable Landon Pearson, O.C., member, Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention

Speakers: Mr. Ernie Regehr, O.C., Research Fellow, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies,Conrad Grebel University College, University of Waterloo; Fellow, The Simons Foundation [here: pdf] Mr. Simon Rosenblum, World Federalist Movement – Canada [here: pdf]


 Roundtable on the Role of Canada

Mr Paul Meyer, Dr Adele Buckley, Hon Douglas Roche

Chairperson: Dr. Adele Buckley, Past Chair, Canadian Pugwash Group

Speakers: Mr. Paul Meyer, former Ambassador for Disarmament; Fellow in International Security,Centre for Dialogue, Simon Fraser University; Senior Fellow, The Simons Foundation [here: pdf] The Honourable Douglas J. Roche, O.C., former Ambassador for Disarmament [here: pdf]


Acknowledgements

Organizing committee:The Honourable Douglas J. Roche, O.C.Mr. Ernie Regehr, O.C.Dr. Dale Dewar, Executive Director, Physicians for Global SurvivalDr. Trevor Findlay, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Treaty ComplianceMr. Fergus Watt, Executive Director, World Federalists Movement – CanadaMr. Cesar Jaramillo, Program Associate, Project PloughsharesMs. Bev Tollefson Delong, Chairperson, Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Advisors: Amb. (Ret.) Paul Meyer, Mr. Murray Thomson, O.C. and the late Dr. Michael WallaceAdministrative support: Project Ploughshares

Sponsors: Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Canadian Pugwash Group,Physicians for Global Survival, Project Ploughshares, World Federalist Movement – Canada

Funders: Canadian Pugwash Group, Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, Lawyersfor Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival, Project Ploughshares, Science for Peace,Sisters of Service of Canada, anonymous donor.

 

Practical Steps Conference Endorsers

CNANW members and endorsing groups of the
Report of the January 27th Practical Steps Conference
Canadian Department of Peace Initiative (CDPI)
Canadian Federation of University Women
Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)
Canadian Peace Alliance
Canadian Pugwash Group
Canadian Voice of Women for Peace
Centre de ressources sur la non-violence
Genesis Facility Foundation
Kairos Network BC-Yukon
Lawyers for Social Responsibility
Les Artistes pour la Paix
Local & Global Outreach Ministry, Calgary Presbytery, United Church of Canada
Pacific Peace Working Group
Parkdale United Church (Faith & Justice Committee)
Physicians for Global Survival
Project Ploughshares
Religions for Peace – Canada
Religions pour la Paix – Québec
Saskatoon Peace Coalition
Science for Peace
Seriously, Time to Stop
The Boundary Peace Initiative
Toronto Hiroshima Day Coalition
Uranium Free Kootenay Boundary
Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, ON-QUE Region
Veterans Against Nuclear rms Saskatchewan Branch
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Canadian Section)
World Federalists Movement – Canada

 

Practical Steps to Zero Nuclear Weapons

CANADIAN ACTION TOWARD THE ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEPENDS ON YOU!
Dear Friends,

Are you concerned about the threat of nuclear weapons use? Biological and chemical weapons are banned. We believe nuclear weapons – threatening thousands of lives and our environment with even a small exchange – should be banned too.

We now have an extremely rare opportunity for progress. President Obama has called for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World and he has the support of many international leaders.

The Government of Canada can speak out at three important events this year:* during the ongoing review of the NATO Strategic Concept (only occurs once every 10 years),
* at the NonProliferation Treaty Review Conference in May (only occurs every 5 years and
* during the G8 Summit.

We ask you to send emails that first welcome Canada’s ongoing support for an effective Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and for the Government’s efforts to improve its effectiveness through important institutional reforms.Then please urge the Government of Canada to:
a) reaffirm Canada’s traditional commitment to a world without nuclear weapons,
b) support the call for an end to nuclear weapons reliance in NATO and the removal of US nuclear weapons in Europe, and
c) support the proposal for preparatory work on a nuclear weapons convention and work on the verification requirements for nuclear disarmament.For a sample letter, you can refer to this one.
Prime Minister Harper at <HarpeS@parl.gc.ca>
Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon <CannoL@parl.gc.ca>
Ambassador to NATO <Robert.McRae@international.gc.ca>
Ambassador for Disarmament c/o <Jonathan.Tan@international.gc.ca>
Email them all in one email: click here

Find your own Member of Parliament: herePrefer to mail your letters?
Letters to the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs can be mailed postage-free to:
House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6.
Letters to the Ambassadors can be mailed to:
Jonathan Tan, Senior Policy Officer | Agent principal des politiques
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament | Direction de la non-prolifération et du désarmement
Fax: 613-944-1835
125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0G2

For information on the current Canadian context, 
read this article
by Doug Roche and Ernie Regehr.

For further information please go to http://www.abolishnuclearweapons.ca

We need at least 5000 letters sent – so please share this with your family and friends. Let’s support the international call for a nuclear weapons-free world!

Bev Delong,
Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

 

Sample letter to the Prime Minister

Sample letter to the Prime Minister and other Members of Parliament
Note: it is believed that the best approach is to mail by post a hand-written letter to the Member of Parliament you wish to contact. You can also fax your message or send it by email.

Email addresses: you can find these linked here.
Prime Minister: pm@pm.gc.ca

Mail may also be sent postage-free to any Member at the following address:

House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

To the Prime Minister
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Minister of National Defence
Minister of Finance

Dear Sir(s)/Madam:

I am very concerned about the risk of use of nuclear weapons. Although some reductions have occurred, it is extremely worrying to hear:
a) that NATO continues to maintain and plan the possible use of nuclear weapons;
b) that the U.S. has no plan for destruction of its current stockpile and indeed proposes using nuclear weapons to respond not only to a nuclear attack but also to chemical or biological attacks;
c) that the U.S. is proposing research and development of smaller nuclear weapons which would make nuclear weapons more “usable” and
d) that certain nuclear weapons states have refused to comply with their legal obligation to negotiate the agreements required for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

I believe that Canada should be making extraordinary efforts to lessen this risk. Could you please advise whether:
a) the Government will now put significant funding into political, diplomatic and technical support for the negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and
b) the Government will now speak out clearly against the maintenance and possible use of nuclear weapons by NATO?

Yours truly,

“Practical Steps to Zero Nuclear Weapons,” Jan 2010

January 25-26 2010, Ottawa

Canada Should Support Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons:
News Release (January 21): in english  [.doc] [.pdf]

Le Canada devrait appuyer un traité d’interdiction des armes nucléaires:

Communiqué  27 janvier 2010: en français  [.doc] [.pdf]

Conference Program: [pdf]

Briefing Paper: Canadian Action for Zero Nuclear Weapons: [pdf]

André-François Giroux, Department of Foreign Affairs Canada,
speaking notes:
Practical Steps to Zero Nuclear Weapons
: [.doc] [.pdf]

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association:
Next Steps Toward a World Free of Nuclear Weapons: the View from Washington [.doc] [.pdf]

Related Documents and websites:

Paul Meyer: Saving the NPT: Time to Renew Treaty Commitments
The Nonproliferation Review, Volume 16, Number 3 [link]

Middle Powers Initiative (MPI): website

Conference Co-sponsors: Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (CNANW)
Canadian Pugwash Group (CPG)
Physicians for Global Survival (PGS)
Project Ploughshares
World Federalist Movement-Canada (WFM-C)

Nonproliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament Consultations 2005

Summary report of 2005 consultations
(Bev Delong, chair of CNANW): see below

Foreign Affairs and International Trade summary report: here

Consultation presentations and discussion were offered on the basis of “non-attribution”. Below are linked those presentations and documents subsequently made available for circulation.

Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Issues, including NPT Review Conference
Chair: Sarah Estabrooks, Project Ploughshares
Discussant: Debbie Grisdale, Physicians for Global Survival – https://cnanw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/grisdale2005.doc

Nuclear Challenges and New Non-Proliferation Mechanisms
Chair: Paul Buteux, University of Manitoba
Discussant: Patricia Willis, Pacific Campaign for Disarmament & Security – https://cnanw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/willis2005.doc;
Noth East Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Briefing (pdf); Model Treaty (doc)

Missile Proliferation, Controls and Defences
Chair: Jean-Francois Rioux, St. Paul University
Discussant: Ernie Regehr, Project Ploughshares – https://cnanw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/regehr2005.doc

Global Partnership Program
Chair: Ms. Angela Bogdan, FAC
Discussant: Donald Avery, University of Western Ontario – https://cnanw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/avery2005.doc; wpd
Discussant: Robin Collins, World Federalist Movement – Canada – https://cnanw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/collins2005.doc; pdf

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Verification and Compliance
Discussant: Bev Delong, Lawyers for Social Responsibility – https://cnanw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/delong2005.doc; wpd

Space Security
Chair: Debbie Grisdale, Physicians for Global Survival
Discussant: Steve Staples, Polaris Institute – https://cnanw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/staples2005.pdf

NACD Challenges and Opportunities over the next 6 months
Discussant: Erika Simpson, Pugwash Canada – click to contact author

REPORT ON GOVERNMENT CIVIL SOCIETY CONSULTATIONS ON INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND OTHER WMD AND THEIR DELIVERY SYSTEMS,
MARCH 8 & 9, 2005, OTTAWA

A number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were invited to the Government Consultations held in Ottawa March 8 and 9th, 2005. Below please find a rough summary of some of the major learnings from that process. Some of the NGO papers will soon be available to you on the CNANW website: www.abolishnuclearweapons.org

1. GOVERNMENT COMMENTS ON THE 2000 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE
The government is feeling quite anxious about the upcoming NPT Review Conference. The words “very grave challenges” and “unprecedented stresses” were used. They seek a balanced outcome that would reaffirm with tangible supporting actions the three core pillars of the treaty’s essential bargain (Non-proliferation, Disarmament, Peaceful Uses).
The Review Conference comes at a time when the United States is trying to deny the political authority, even the existence, of the “13 Practical Steps” which arose out of the year 2000 Review Conference Final Agreement. The Canadian Government’s tack is to encourage states not to undermine the Final Agreement, noting it is a slippery slope if you do so because the rest of the 2000 and 1995 agreements (including the extension of the Treaty in 1995) might be at risk. These are agreed standards and progress against an agreed framework is important. (An NGO later commented that a change in government does not justify a state in walking away from its commitments or cherry picking through the steps to choose which ones to adhere to.)
At this point in time there is no agenda for the meeting and there are concerns that it may conclude without any type of consensus statement. In anticipation of this, the Canadian delegation may try to make progress on specific key institutional changes that would strengthen the regime. The NPT now has no secretariat, holds a decision-making meeting only every 5 years, has no capacity to call an emergency gathering to deal with problems such as North Korea’s (DPRK) withdrawal from the NPT, nor to even read the reports filed by countries. They are proposing substantive reform to the NPT regime by responding to these problems possibly through a set of specific decisions calling for:

a. annual meetings
b. the creation of a bureau of Ambassadors empowered to work between sessions and in particular, able to call for emergency sessions
c. capacity for emergency sessions to deal with urgent threats to the treaty, such as a proposed withdrawal from the treaty, using peer pressure and concerted diplomatic action.
d. annual reporting process where states report on all activities taken in support of the Treaty
e. enhanced role for civil society, noting their capacity to educate the public on the NPT and provide expert advice to government delegations on NPT issues.

The government is looking forward to reports from states on their activities toward the elimination of nuclear weapons (Article VI). They are also looking at the recent proposals with respect to the nuclear fuel cycle coming from Dr. El Baradei, Director of the IAEA, the IAEA’s panel of experts on multinational control of the nuclear fuel cycle and President Bush. There will be discussion of the need to make the IAEA’s model Additional Protocol (the AP), the current standard for safeguards to ensure that the IAEA can verify adherence to the NPT. And there will discussion of the need to make the “right” to nuclear power under Article IV conditional on adherence to the other articles of the NPT.

2. NGO COMMENTS ON THE 2000 NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE

NGOs noted the risks posed by nuclear weapons and expressed concern about the US plans for bunker busters, more rapid ability to test weapons, and more relaxed policies on resort to use of nuclear weapons. One NGO wondered whether we should be seeking a ban on research on nuclear weapons for offensive use as occurs under the Chemical and Biological Conventions. Some of the NGO demands on the government for action during the NPT Review Conference included requests that they call for:

a) urgent steps to take nw off high alert and off launch on warning
b) the creation of a subsidiary body to the Conference on Disarmament that would at least discuss the elimination of nuclear weapons,
c) the establishment of a negotiating body for a treaty to deal with fissile materials;
d) strengthening the institutional underpinnings of the treaty to make it more responsive and sustainable
e) all states to avoid backsliding on the agreements reached at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences and
f) increased ngo access to the meetings (see below).

We asked if statements would be made calling for transparency and verification on the Moscow Treaty.

RE: NGO Access to Rev Con: There seemed to be some consensus between government and ngo that the access gained to the working groups last year might be lost if civil society pressed for this access to be formalized. Perhaps it is better simply to assume the practice will be maintained…

Debbie requested that Canada make available its public statement in advance of the NPT Review Conference. “Canada’s Approach to the 2005 NPT Review Conference” is now online for your review.
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/arms/nptoverview-en.asp
En francais: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/arms/nptoverview-fr.asp

The government was asked to make available briefing materials and regular updates for the public, parliamentarians and the media to increase support for the activities of the Canadian delegation.

RE: NGO efforts toward the Rev. Con. The government was advised that NGOs are trying to educate the public and show support for the Review Conference by seeking signatures on Declarations, and encouraging Canadian parliamentarians, Mayors and regular citizens to attend the meetings.

3. NE ASIA SECURITY
An update was given on NE Asia with a call to consider responding to the problems with DPRK through the creation of a NE Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone including Japan and the two Koreas. A model Treaty on the Northeast Asian NWFZ is being circulated among scholars and governments to seek their comments. For further information on this contact Patti Willis <pcdsres@mail.island.net> <mailto:pcdsres@mail.island.net>

4. NATO AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Erika Simpson presented a paper entitled “NACD [Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Disarmament] Challenges and opportunities over the next six months”. For a copy, kindly contact Erika directly at simpson@uwo.ca. Erika expressed concern about U.S. moves toward a pre-emptive ‘first-strike’ strategy that promises to retaliate with nuclear weapons, even in the event of a ‘limited’ chemical or biological attack. She called for the re-opening of NATO’s paragraph 32 review to determine what NATO’s current policy is toward the use of nuclear weapons.

To respond to the NATO problems, Canada might work to strengthen the moderate middle of non-nuclear weapon states in the UN and NATO. It will be especially important to do so over the next six months because there could be a significant weakening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Some European Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are calling for the removal of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons based in Europe. But Dr. Karel Koster, one of the foremost proponents of this proposal, has noted that a withdrawal would not necessarily result in a far-reaching change in nuclear doctrine of ‘extended deterrence’, that is, the use of nuclear weapons by certain NATO members to defend other non-nuclear states against attack. In what circumstances would NATO use nuclear weapons? Are threats of nuclear use credible? How can NATO states call for other nations to remain nuclear-free if the US continues to insist on developing new warheads? ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is never a very compelling argument. What alternative strategies are there for building security? Some ideas might include better-verified treaties; well-funded inspection regimes; cutting-edge technologies; more-effective sanctions; and enhanced control over fissile materials. For this reason, the proposals put forward in the Atlanta II consultation report by the Middle Powers Initiative bear close study.

We were advised that the figure of 480 bombs in Europe as recently reported by the Natural Resources Defense Council in the US was vastly overstated and that the true figure is much lower – but the figure is classified and not available to us.
Concern was strongly expressed about Canadian engagement in NATO Nuclear Planning and we received a surprising response that the NATO Nuclear Planning Group does not plan nuclear use…..We will pursue this information.

5. CANADA AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Proposals were made for the Government of Canada to:

a) increase public education at home and abroad on nuclear weapons risks,
b) organize an opnw.org website (in anticipation of the eventual creation of the Organization for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, c) pass domestic legislation protecting whistleblowers and
d) create model national legislation that would end Canadian involvement in nuclear weapons use.
e) call for NATO nuclear policies to be compliant with international law; failing that, to cease participation in the NATO Nuclear Planning Group.

6. CANADA AND THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME
We received an update on progress from the government on their contribution of funding and staff to the Global Partnership Programme (GPP). Their website has a wealth of information on their activities:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/foreign_policy/global_partnership/menu-en.asp

The funding allocated to this work is quite trivial. Note that the US spent $5.5 Trillion on nuclear weapons between 1948 and 1996. Last year, close to $40 billion was spent on nuclear weapons. By comparison, from 1992 to 2004 (13 years) the US spent only $9.2 billion on the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. One must question whether the Nuclear Weapons States are serious in their commitment to secure and disarm nuclear arsenals. These programs face constant threats from the US administration of cuts to their funding despite knowledge that terrorist access to these arsenals is a significant threat to global security. It is therefore critical for Canada and likeminded states to be vigilant and to expand this real disarmament effort. Robin Collins believes that Canada’s work on the Global Partnership Program is an excellent initiative which reduces the threat of terrorist access to weapons of mass destruction. He suggests that Canada could expand its capacity by finding or leveraging significant increases in immediate funding, broadening outreach to win over new partners, and supporting civil society feed-in. However, without achievement on the disarmament front, the GPP effort may be tossed to the side by competing nuclear re-armament agendas.

7. BMD DECISION
Many of the NGOs have commended the government on the BMD decision, stating it has earned us “diplomatic capital”. Ernie Regehr has done an excellent paper outlining the upcoming arms control needs that flow from US deployment of the BMD system:

a) agreed international limits on ballistic missile interceptors consistent with stated “limited defence” objectives
b) a ban on anti-satellite weapons testing and deployment; and
c) a ban on testing and deployment of weapons in space.

8. SPACE SECURITY
The cooperants in the Space Security Index project updated us on their 2003 survey now available at http://spacesecurity.org/ for further information on this project, please contact Bob Lawson at DFAIT or Sarah Estabrooks at Ploughshares.

9. VERIFICATION of WMD
There is significant concern with US moves to dismantle UNMOVIC for it has achieved considerable success in organizing experts and a reliable procedure to verifying the absence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. Some are now studying the possibility of retaining their learnings and their list of experts so that the UN would have a permanent independent verification unit.

The International Security Research Outreach Program (ISROP) has organized two major papers on verification as the Canadian contribution to the Blix Commission. One was written by Trevor Findlay and associates at VERTIC in London. The second involved a survey, conference calls and a seminar among verification experts to consider the current challenges and responses thereto where considering verification of chemical, biological and nuclear treaties. These papers can be found at: www.wmdcommission.org <http://www.wmdcommission.org>

Compliance management has emerged as a much-needed discipline and happily they were able to report that Dr. Trevor Findlay has been hired to begin a Compliance Management Project based in the Norman Patterson School for International Affairs (NPSIA) at Carleton University. They will review past responses to failures to comply and try to develop a “tool kit” for use in future instances of noncompliance.

Reported by Bev Delong, Chairperson, CNANW with help from Robin Collins, Erika Simpson and Patti Willis.

Do you want more information?

Do you want more information?
Here are some good sources of information:

Merav Datan and Jurgen Scheffran, “Principles and Means for Verification of a Nuclear weapons Convention”, INESAP Information Bulletin No. 14, Nov. 1997, p. 21.

Steve Fetter, “Future Directions in Nuclear Arms Control and Verification”, INESAP Information Bulletin No. 15, at p. 50.

Steve Fetter, “Verifying Nuclear Disarmament”, Henry L. Stimson Center Occasional Paper No. 29, October 1996.

Steve Fetter, “ A Comprehensive Transparency Regime for Warheads and Fissile Materials”, Arms Control Today, January/February 1999.

David Fischer, “Safeguards for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons”, INESAP Information Bulletin No. 14, Nov. 1997, p. 30.

Patricia M. Lewis, “Laying the Foundations for Getting to Zero: Verifying the Transition to Low Levels of Nuclear Weapons”, VERTIC Research Report No.1 September 1998, published by the Verification Information Technology Centre, London.

Bhaskar Menon, Disarmament: A Basic Guide published by the UN , NY, 2001. Available at: http://disarmament.un.org/education/

Ministry of Defence (UK), “A Summary Report by the Ministry of Defence on the Study conducted by the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston into the United Kingdom’s Capabilities to Verify the Reduction and Elimination of Nuclear Weapons”, published in 2000, found on the Federation of American Scientists website.

Annette Schaper, “A Treaty on the Cutoff of Fissile Materials for Nuclear Weapons – What to cover? How to verify?, Summary, PRIF Report 48/1997

Annette Schaper, “The Cutoff of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons: Scope and Verification”, INESAP Information Bulletin No. 14, Nov. 1997, p.36.

Annette Schaper and Katja Frank, “ A Nuclear Weapon Free World – Can it be Verified?” Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, PRIF Report No. 53.

Theodore B. Taylor, “Global Abolition of Nuclear Weapons – Verification of Compliance and Deterrents to Violation” Draft of Contributed Paper for 40th Pugwash Conference, 15 – 20 September 1990, Egham United Kingdom.

“Verification and Enforcement”, published by Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), in Energy & Security No. 12, Nuclear Weapons and the Rule of Law, Science for Democratic Action.

What We Do

  1. Discussion of Nuclear Weapons Policy:
    • We organize or support Round Tables among Parliamentarians, officials, academics and the public to encourage a discussion of nuclear weapons issues and policies.
    • We organize regular briefings by officials of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and National Defence for our membership.
    • We discuss and build consensus among our member groups on priorities for Canadian policy priorities.
    • We Participate in, and encourage members to participate in, public hearings on Canadian policy with respect to nuclear weapons.
    • We serve on the organizing committee for an Annual Consultation with the Canadian Government on nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament.
  2. Inform Canadian Parliamentarians, officials, the media and the public:
    • We prepare and circulate public education materials.
    • We provide briefings and educational materials to officials and Parliamentarians.
    • We develop public campaigns on nuclear weapons issues.
    • We circulate key information through listservs.
    • We share key information on our website.
  3. Network with Others Working for Abolition:
    • We serve as point of contact for the Canadian public on nuclear disarmament activities:
    • We serve as a national point of contact with the Canadian government and other interest groups.
    • We contribute to and work with international efforts for nuclear abolition.
  4. Build/Provide Evidence of Public Support for Abolition:
    • We provide the Canadian Government with evidence of support for disarmament through:
    • Letter writing campaigns, opinion polls in Canada and abroad, public statements by key groups in civil society, public statements by governments supportive of abolition.
  5. Building Media Awareness of Nuclear Weapons Concerns, and the Need for Abolition:
    • We identify and provide information to key media people who follow the Government’s movement on foreign policy.
  6. Building International Support for Abolition:
    • CNANW proposed creating a coalition of middle power states to work toward nuclear weapons elimination. (This became the successful Middle Powers Initiative.)
    • We write to Ministers of Foreign Affairs.
    • We communicate with peace groups around the world.

Listserve

CNANW has two lists you can subscribe to: a full version which forwards to your email address all nuclear abolition messages submitted, and a “lite” version which circulates a reduced volume of email.

To subscribe to the full version of “abolition”, send an email message to majordomo@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca with <subscribe abolition> (no brackets) as the content of your message.

By sending <unsubscribe abolition> you can get off the list at any time.

For abolitionlite, send the message <subscribe abolitionlite> to:
majordomo@clifford.uwaterloo.ca.

By sending <unsubscribe abolitionlite> you can get off the list at any time.

Does your group want to endorse the statement?

Does your group want to endorse the statement for abolition of nuclear weapons?
Group Statement of Support for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons

Groups endorsing the following statement are endorsing the goal of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. We are grateful for your moral support.

We believe that the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons are abhorrent and morally wrong. We call on the Government of Canada to work urgently with other nations to conclude a convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons in the world.

Name of Group:

Name of Contact Person:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

Email Address:

Email your endorsement to cnanw@web.ca

Tips for Meeting Politicians

Tips for Meeting Politicians
Once you feel you have enough information about nuclear weapons, you and your group may decide to try and meet with your Member of Parliament (MP) or a local Senator. If so, here are some tips that may be helpful.

• First, do some research on the person you are meeting. The Parliamentary website (http://www.parl.gc.ca) is an excellent source of information about MPs, Senators, Parliamentary committees etc.
• The following URL takes you right to an alphabetical list of MPs. Click on the letter of your MP’s surname, and it will take you to a short political biography of your member. This will be useful in tailoring your questions to your MP’s interests and parliamentary responsibilities. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/house/mpscur.asp
•You can also search by constituency.
• The biography will tell you if your MP is on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. If so, you may want to find our what the Committee is currently discussing. This is also available from the Parliamentary website, under “committee business”.

• In preparation to meet your MP, you should:
• Decide who will go to the meeting. (A group of 2-4 people is a good size, but a larger group is OK too.)
• Decide on the main points you want to make, the questions you want to ask, and what you’d like the politician to do. Try and anticipate some follow-up to the meeting, so you have a reason to contact the office again.
• Assign responsibility among your group for who will speak to which points, and who will ask which questions.
• Consider taking visual material to the meeting.
• Consider putting together a small folder of good information to leave with the MP. It could include a description of who you are, and accurate background information about the issues you will talk about. Even if MPs don’t have time to read it, their assistants may.
• Be on time for the meeting. Even better, be a few minutes early! And don’t overstay your welcome.

• Once you know what you want to talk about, e-mail or phone the MP’s Constituency office and request a meeting. Half an hour to an hour is about as much time as you can expect to get.
• MPs’ e-mail addresses almost all follow a formula. It is: the first five letters of their last name, followed by their first initial @parl.gc.ca. Thus Mary Anderson would be anderm@parl.gc.ca.
• If you can’t find the local phone number, the House of Commons information service (613 992-4793) can give you phone and fax contacts for all MPs in their Ottawa offices, and in their constituencies.

• Offer to send additional material, to follow up points of particular interest to the MP.
• You might also consider inviting your MP to public meetings or seminars your are holding, as a way of making them aware of community concerns about nuclear weapons. Even if they can’t attend, they will know the meetings are taking place.

Abolition Resolution

Abolition Resolution
Whereas there are over 30,000 nuclear weapons (of which 4,400 are on hair trigger alert) posing an immediate threat to the world due to the risk of their accidental or intentional use;

Whereas billions of dollars are being spent annually on nuclear weapons which could be used to address human needs around the globe;

Whereas some 61 international Generals and Admirals from 17 countries advised in December 1996 that long-term international nuclear policy must be based on the declared principle of continuous, complete and irrevocable elimination of nuclear weapons;

Whereas the International Court of Justice determined in July 1996 that the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons is, for all practical purposes, contrary to international law; and that all states are obligated to conclude an agreement for the elimination of nuclear weapons;

Whereas the NATO states in their policy statements continue to refer to nuclear weapons as being “essential to preserve peace”;

Whereas there are no ongoing multilateral negotiations ongoing for an agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons;

Whereas a model Nuclear Weapons Convention has been filed before the UN General Assembly as a discussion document to encourage progress toward a Convention;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ____________________________
A) call upon the Government of Canada to:

ï conform with international law and make clear in the United Nations and in NATO Canada’s strong moral, political and financial commitment to urgent negotiations for the total elimination of nuclear weapons;

ï urge that all nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert be de-alerted immediately and move to de-activate systematically all other nuclear weapons to reduce the risk of unintentional nuclear war;

ï support public education in Canada and abroad concerning the urgency of a ban on nuclear weapons, as it did during the negotiations for a ban on landmines.

B) advise the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the requests contained within this Petition.

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that ____________________encourage its members to study and speak out to family, friends and neighbours about the urgency of the abolition of nuclear weapons.