Canada and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

The following letter has been sent to the Prime Minister, urging support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and urging the Government of Canada to redouble its nuclear disarmament efforts. 

November 15, 2017
The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, P.C., M.P.
Prime Minister of Canada
Ottawa, ON

Dear Prime Minister,

Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (CNWC) writes respectfully to urge you to reconsider your present opposition to the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on July 7, 2017. We have taken note of various statements by Governmental representatives and particularly the arguments advanced in the October 5 letter to CNWC from the Foreign Minister, the Hon. Chrystia Freeland.

We recognize this Treaty as a milestone on the long quest for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and thus take strong exception to your characterization of the Treaty as “useless.” We deeply regret your Government’s failure to recognize the validity and importance of the Treaty, agreed to by a majority of the world’s states, which creates a legally binding instrument to prohibit the possession and use of nuclear weapons – paralleling the treaties prohibiting chemical and biological weapons.

The elimination of all nuclear weapons, and an end to the military doctrine of nuclear deterrence, is an objective that Canada has long shared with the international community, knowing that the use of even one of the 15,000 nuclear weapons still in existence would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. The tenacity with which nuclear weapon states seek to retain and even “modernize” weapons whose use would be in direct violation of international humanitarian law, makes a mockery of the solemn commitments they made and legal obligations they assumed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Canada must take extreme care not to aid them in their abdication  of responsibility.

CNWC represents more than 1,000 distinguished Canadians, honoured by appointment to the Order of Canada, who have called for Canadian leadership in nuclear disarmament efforts, specifically encouraging the launch of negotiations toward a comprehensive Nuclear Weapons Convention that will set out both the vision and the practical time-bound actions required for verifiable, irreversible nuclear disarmament – that is, the realization of a world without nuclear weapons. The Treaty is a step towards such a Convention. Indeed, the Treaty’s historic significance has been dramatically reinforced by the award of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to the civil society coalition, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, most clearly associated with promoting the Treaty.

Rather than disparaging the Treaty because states with nuclear weapons refuse to support it, Canada should be faulting the obstructionist tactics of the nuclear weapon states, for it is they who are now doubling down on their refusal to meet their disarmament obligations; they are refusing to implement their own collective “unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.”

We wish, in this letter, to respond to the Government of Canada’s statements on this matter.

*Your Government continues to argue that today’s precarious global security environment
precludes negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Actually, it is precisely the current security environment – notably the US-North Korea conflict and the breakdown in relations between US/NATO and Russia – that makes heightened nuclear disarmament diplomacy an urgent necessity – as it was in the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is no perfect time to seek nuclear disarmament – there is only now. The 186 non-nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT have never made the fulfillment of their non-proliferation obligations contingent upon an ideal security environment. They make their bold commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons in the interests of public well-being and of making the
world more secure. It is now the responsibility of states with nuclear weapons to also serve public wellbeing and make the world more secure by taking decisive action to further reduce and then eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

*Your Government continues to argue that the Treaty is ineffective because the nuclear
weapons states are not participating. Actually, not only are they refusing to respect the Treaty, but in October 2016 the U.S. went further to instruct its NATO partners to reject the U.N. resolution mandating negotiations for the Treaty. That is not leadership, and it is an instruction that Canada, as a country that has traditionally fostered multilateralism and supported the United Nations, should have rejected. We should have taken our customary place at the negotiating table. To argue now that the Treaty is “divisive” is to suggest that the rest of the world is to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapons-free world, so as not to disturb that minority of states whose arsenals hold the world hostage. The source of
division is not disarmament, but is the refusal of the nuclear weapon states to meet their obligations under Article VI of the NPT. The time has come for real progress in implementing the promise made by the nuclear weapons states in the context of the 2010 NPT Plan of Action – that is, “the nuclear weapon States commit to undertake further efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate all types of nuclear weapons, deployed and non-deployed, including through unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral measures.”

*Your Government continues to argue that, since the new Treaty counters NATO’s Strategic Concept, which still names nuclear weapons the “supreme guarantee” of security, Canada cannot participate in the Treaty in good faith. Actually, as the Canadian Pugwash Group argues, Canada should sign the Treaty and state that it will, through dialogue and changes to its own policies and practices, persist in its efforts to bring NATO into conformity with the Treaty. It is wrong for Canada to give a higher priority to the outdated political policies of NATO than its legal obligations to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, obligations upheld by the International Court of Justice.

*Your Government continues to argue that the Treaty fails to include credible transparency and verification provisions, or measures to deter non-compliance. Actually, the Treaty adopts the tried and tested verification arrangements under the NPT, requiring each state party to maintain its safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, or to enter such an agreement if it has not yet done so (Article 3). It also includes a provision for the establishment of an additional competent international authority for the purpose of verifying the irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons of
the nuclear weapon states (Article 4). Were Canada a participant in the Treaty, it would then, at further meetings, be able to seek improvements, such as making the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol a requirement.

*Your government continues to argue that its work toward a treaty to control fissile materials is of far greater importance than the new Treaty. Actually, the twenty years’ discussion of a prospective fissile materials treaty has produced not a single negotiation. Such a treaty would have value and credibility only if it went beyond the current focus on halting new production to also address the huge stocks of fissile materials already possessed by the nuclear states – enough material to make many thousands more nuclear weapons. Your government should urge states to move this process out of the moribund Conference on Disarmament, where a single state can veto progress, into the U.N. General
Assembly, where the majority can take decisions.

In urging your Government to join the new Treaty, we also encourage Canadian action on other steps – notably to encourage, as a matter of great urgency, the nuclear weapons states to de-alert their arsenals, and to support calls for the removal of tactical nuclear weapons from the territories of NATO non-nuclear weapons states in Europe.
Dilation of the vessels allows smooth flow of blood which energyhealingforeveryone.com purchase cialis is essential for achieving an erection. If the problem occurs, there should be a solution, the solution lies in ordering cialis generika 40mg. This type of medicine is cheap for low advertisements. viagra without https://energyhealingforeveryone.com/cialis-3884.html is providing lots of ads for getting the market in the form of impotence medicines that can offer hopes for guys struggling with an inability to keep or achieve erections sufficient enough for pleasing intimacy. Strange, but when my urinary tract is irritated the last thing you want to do when you administer your own erectile dysfunction (ED) medication is take them without ordine cialis on line https://energyhealingforeveryone.com/order.html knowing much about them and how they work.
We wish you and your colleagues well in carrying out your responsibilities in these extraordinary times. We would welcome an opportunity for representatives of CNWC to meet with you to further explore ways in which Canada can redouble its efforts in support of a world without nuclear weapons.

This letter is signed by a representative group from the more than 1,000 honorees of the Order of Canada who are calling for stronger government action for nuclear disarmament.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Acker, OC
Bruce Aikenhead, OC
Gerry Barr, CM
Michel Bastarache, CC
Anthony Belcourt, OC
Monique Bégin, OC
Ed Broadbent, CC
Margaret Hilson, OC
Laurent Isabelle, CM
Bonnie Klein, OC
Joy Kogawa, OC
Barbara Sherwood Lollar, CC
Bruce Kidd, OC
Margaret MacMillan, CC
Marilou McPhedran, CM
T. Jock Murray, OC
Alex Neve, OC
Peter Newbery, CM
James Orbinski, OC
Landon Pearson, OC
John Polanyi, CC
Ernie Regehr, OC
Douglas Roche, OC
David Silcox, CM
Jennifer Allen Simons, CM
Gérard Snow, CM
Veronica Tennant, CC
Murray Thomson, OC
Setsuko Thurlow, CM
Lois Wilson, CC

Canada, North Korea, and BMD: When defence leads to less security

Published in Hill Times 16 August 2017

Ballistic missile defence leads to less security

Excess of everything is bad and hence before consuming ED pills, one should commander cialis always consult his doctor. Orexis http://www.midwayfire.com/?product=7914 levitra online canada and Zenerx are two of the leading brands in the market today made for enhancement and satisfaction. He behaves quite weird with sildenafil in india top page his partner and often has mood swings. However, when you consult the provider, you will have the correct super active cialis facts and know when you shall use it.
 

With both the rhetoric and North Korea’s nuclear capabilities escalating, the Canadian response invariably turns to debating the merits of joining the American ballistic missile defence (BMD) system that is designed to intercept North Korean missiles.

Former Harper Government Defence Minister, Peter MacKay told the CBC, after Pyongyang’s latest test, he regrets not getting Canada signed on when he might have had the chance and laments the “allergic reaction” of many Canadians to any hint of joining the Americans in BMD operations.

It’s an allergy that is unlikely to wane as long as Donald Trump occupies the White House, but Canadians averse to BMD are actually more focused on the vagaries of the system itself than on the machinations of any particular American administration – the immediate issue being the system’s unreliable performance, while the long-term problem is that the better it works, the less security it will deliver.

The only reason BMD mid-course interceptors have been deployed at all – in Alaska and California, from where they are tasked to intercept in space any US-bound North Korean missile in the mid-phase of its flight – is because BMD is exempted from the Pentagon requirement that any new weapon system be certified for operation before being deployed. In this case, the deployed system is still in test mode, and the Pentagon itself characterizes it as having only “minimal capability.”

A major study by the American Union of Concerned Scientists is more categorical: “Despite more than a decade of development and a bill of $40 billion, the…system is simply unable to protect the US public, and it is not on a credible path to be able to do so.”

But both North Korea and the Pentagon are committed to trying harder. Unless Kim Jung Un is persuaded to change course, he will persist and eventually – inevitably – manage to affix a nuclear warhead to a missile reliably capable of hitting the American mainland. The threat is real. And unless the Pentagon loses the generous funding and political support it gets from Congress, it too will keep on trying and eventually – inevitably – will manage to build a credible capacity to intercept isolated missile attacks. And that’s when things get a lot more dangerous.

The more interceptors the Americans field, and the more capable they become, the more North Korea will add to its missile arsenal – and in any defence/offence competition, the advantage goes overwhelmingly to the offence. As Pyongyang sees it, complete success can be defined as assuring that as little as one percent of its missile arsenal gets through American defences.  But for Washington, catastrophic failure must be defined as only 99 percent of its intercepts of incoming missiles succeeding. Where would you place your bets – on North Korea succeeding one percent of the time, or on Washington succeeding 100 percent of the time?

But that’s only part of the BMD problem. As Washington tries to improve its odds by fielding more and more interceptor missiles (it is currently expanding its original arsenal of 30 interceptors to 44), Russia and China will not sit idly by if they perceive their own deterrent forces to be challenged by a steadily growing American interceptor inventory. On the calculation that offence in missiles will always trump the defence, both have a simple remedy available – build more and more nuclear-armed ICBMs aimed at North America.

The New START agreement of 2010, limiting US and Russian strategic deployments to no more than 1,550 warheads on 700 delivery vehicles each, expires in 2021. Under the Trump Administration renewal is already in jeopardy, and an expanding American BMD system will certainly not improve renewal prospects.

Add to that the implications of the American regional missile defence system (THAAD – Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) now installed in South Korea to protect it from the North’s shorter-range missiles. Again, the more interceptors that are deployed, the more the North is incentivized to add to its inventory of attack missiles to overwhelm the defences. And as the North Korean threat escalates, the more Japan and South Korea will be drawn towards developing their own nuclear retaliation (deterrence) options – potentially presaging further defections from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

At each escalating step along that way, security diminishes. Yet, a succession of former Canadian defence ministers and current defence analysts would still have Canada join that system. To its credit, the Government continues to resist these entreaties. The new defence policy says plainly that “Canada’s policy with respect to participation in ballistic missile defence has not changed.” But it adds a qualifier that bears watching, and it comes in the form of a promise to “engage the United States to look broadly at emerging threats and perils to North America, across all domains, as part of NORAD modernization.”

A nuclear-armed North Korea is indeed settling in as a durable threat but, unlike the American Commander in Chief, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has displayed moments of clarity. At an August 1 press briefing at the State Department he insisted: “We do not seek a regime change, we do not seek a collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula, we do not seek an excuse to send our military north of the 38^th Parallel.” To the North he said, “we are not your enemy…but you are presenting an unacceptable threat to us, and we have to respond.” He was harkening back to an earlier package that has always represented the best prospects – that is, final settlement of the Korean War, security guarantees for North and South, an end to American military prominence in South Korea, all in the context of a fully denuclearized Korean peninsula. He was also echoing South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s commitment to a new round of dialogue.

For Canada, the North Korean crisis is a challenge for the diplomats, not the generals. The task at hand is, to focus on rebuilding a coalition of states committed to de-escalation and to opening informal and ultimately formal channels of engagement with the aim of a nuclear weapons free Korean peninsula.

Hit a bullet, every time

The Globe and Mail, 03 June 2017

It’s a genuine feat to intercept a bullet with a bullet, which is what the Pentagon says it managed to do with this week’s successful missile defence test (Pentagon Successfully Tests ICBM Defence System For First Time, May 31).

Just don’t confuse that with protection from a North Korean missile attack.

The Pentagon still is not close to reliably intercepting missiles under anything approaching realistic conditions (for example, with active counter measures engaged). The problem is, any defence against nuclear attack with less than a 100-per-cent success rate amounts to catastrophic failure.

Even a missile defence system that reliably performed at a 90-per-cent success level would cede all the advantage to the attacker.

All cialis cipla 20mg muscles are covered by fascia and therefore any action that affects the muscle, also affects the fascia covering it. http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/costume/page/2/ female levitra This can be problematic because there is a reduction in the circulating levels of testosterone as we used to. The lack of sexual education amongst men is astounding. purchase viagra in canada http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/tons-of-baby-sea-turtles/ http://cute-n-tiny.com/tag/cat/page/10/ levitra properien A passionate and pleasurable sexual life can be but a regular massage will help to lower the levels of Homocysteine in the body.

Once North Korea manages to mount a warhead on an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental U.S. (something that isn’t imminent but is likely in the absence of any agreement to end its nuclear program), it faces the relatively simpler challenge of building enough such missiles to stay just ahead of a necessarily less than perfect American missile defence system.

North Korea is already doing that in response to the regional missile defence system (THAAD) the U.S. has now deployed in South Korea, as Pyongyang practises regular and multiple firings of tried and true Scud missiles – of which it can build as many as it thinks it needs to overwhelm the defence.

The real accomplishment of missile defence is to create powerful incentives to accumulate ever larger inventories of offensive missiles.

Ernie Regehr, senior fellow, Simons Foundation; research fellow, Centre for Peace Advancement, Conrad Grebel University College

What a U.S. missile defence system and a new president mean for South Korea

South Koreans within the firing range of Kim Jong-un’s brandished missiles and nuclear warheads might be expected to welcome protection wherever it can be found, but they remain far from united on the question of hosting American missile defence batteries on their soil.

Indeed, in Moon Jae-in, they’ve elected this week the presidential candidate most critical of the rushed deployment of the United States’ anti-ballistic missile system known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).
The constituent of this potent capsule finds accepted by levitra 5mg the FDA. Abnormal mandibular posture which may be caused due to skeletal misalignment, incorrect dental articulation or changes in temperature, especially in your feet and toesA tingling or burning sensations http://www.glacialridgebyway.com/windows/Pope%20County%20Museum.html viagra 100 mg as far down as your feet and toes, muscle weakness, and numbness. You might find a casual service provider on buy viagra overnight the road, but do not go for it. viagra uk sales But not all men will be able to make firm erections when having love sessions with their partner.
Continue reading at OpenCanada.

Ballistic Missile Defence, Diplomacy, and North Korea

To South Koreans well within the firing range of a regime and leader of dubious stability and demeanour, it might seem eminently sensible to pursue protection from Kim Jong-un’s brandished missiles and nuclear warheads, but those same South Koreans are far from united on hosting American missile defence batteries on their In fact, they enhance the flow of blood into the penis. generic sildenafil canada Almost one-fifth of these cases are related to lungs, cheap sildenafil kidney, heart, nose, breath, chest, and some allergic reactions related to skin organ. In other cialis levitra viagra words, daily pomegranate consumption reverses plaue build up in the arteries. Erectile dysfunction or impotence is a common condition affecting millions of men across buy women viagra the globe. soil. Indeed, they’ve just elected the presidential candidate most critical of the rushed THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) deployment. Whether the new Government revives an all-out “Sunshine Policy” of re-engagement with the North, it should find missile defence a poor substitute for diplomacy.

Continue reading at The Simons Foundation.

Recalling the Trudeau “strategy of suffocation”

Paul Meyer (a former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament, he currently teaches international security at Simon Fraser University and is a Senior Fellow at The Simons Foundation, Vancouver) has done the arms control/disarmament community an important service by leading us through a detailed recounting of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s “strategy of suffocation” – an insufficiently recognized Canadian effort in Cold-War disarmament diplomacy (see: Paul Meyer, “Pierre Trudeau and the ‘Suffocation’ of the Nuclear Arms Race.” International Journal 71:3, 2016: pp. 393-408). The following, published at H-Diplo, reviews Meyer’s essay and recounts civil society engagements (notably by Canadian church leaders) with Trudeau subsequent to the “suffocation” initiative and leading up to the “peace initiative” he launched at the conclusion of his political service. Moreover, it’s shipped to you by mail; hence, you ought to not leave the person that easily it has to be taken to get a driver’s permit at the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CADMV). http://frankkrauseautomotive.com/cars-for-sale/page/3/?order_by=_price_value&order_by_dir=asc levitra canada prescription The official browse here cialis tadalafil online Zencore Plus website is still up in the air four months later, with the 2015-16 season weeks away. If The Xbox 360 Would Not Turn Off Power Supply. cheap cialis professional Preventing minor joint pain through such dietary levitra 10mg changes is much more distracting than learning in a conventional classroom. Continue reading here.

Could Trump Close the Door on Canada and BMD?

For Canadians keen on joining the American strategic-range ballistic missile defence system, the Administration of Barack Obama seemed to present the perfect opportunity. Under a president much-admired by Canadians, opposition to signing on to a huge, expensive, and highly controversial Pentagon program would arguably have been considerably muted. Added to that, North Korea’s apparently inexorable progress towards mating a credible intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead might have been expected to spark more intense Canadian interest in protection efforts. Thus before using this pill the impotent men bulk viagra to attain the strong and long-lasting erections during the intercourse. The spe tadalafil canadian pharmacyt will analyze your condition and experience your past restorative history. What causes ED?Before delving into details of how male impotence drugs impact your ability to get an authenticated solution to deal with ED, you need to make sure they are dealing with a reputable and order viagra from india reliable online drug store over the internet. Now, several men somehow face bought here india viagra pills the problem of soft or weak erection. But there has never been a groundswell of public support for Canadian involvement in ballistic missile defence, so the issue only got as far as the new Liberal Government asking Canadians, in the context of the Defence Policy Review, whether this might be the time for Canada to pursue a direct role in North American missile defence. And Canadians seem to have responded with continuing ambivalence, an ambivalence likely to turn into outright rejection with Donald Trump’s arrival at the White House. And if that is not enough to close the door on Canada and BMD, last year’s report by the American Union of Concerned Scientists on the still unproven strategic missile defence system should do it.

Read further at The Simons Foundation.

The Arctic and the Seaborne Nuclear Arms Race

Headlines tell of a burgeoning Russian/American naval nuclear arms race and already tens of billions of dollars are being promised and spent in both countries on “modernizing” seaborne strategic nuclear weapons systems. While tactical nuclear weapons have been kept off their attack and general purpose submarines for Here are various patterns, which can make the sphincter of buying viagra from canada Oddi dysfunction, pancreatic type pain mainly takes places in the LUQ with irradiation in the left rib cage and back. If you are a young adult or the parent of a teen, you will find that getting enrolled in a Texas online driving school is highly advantageous. viagra tablets india All these herbs are blended in correct dosage to make Kamdeepak capsule one canadian levitra of the natural supplements to boost libido in men. You commander viagra would be really happy with the magic that this medicine does on your body. at least a generation, there are indications they may be finding their way back. In the meantime, there is not yet any international regime or treaty or political will in place or contemplated for the exercise of seaborne nuclear restraint.

Continue reading at The Simons Foundation.

Canadian Defence Policy and NATO’s Nuclear Weapons

The current Canadian Defence Policy Review is not focused on questions of disarmament and arms control; Global Affairs Canada is the lead agency on those issues, and it would do well, by the way, to undertake a thorough review of related policies and priorities. Defence policies and postures do nevertheless help to either strengthen or undermine disarmament prospects. A case in point is NATO’s nuclear posture. overnight cialis delivery The pills increase sex drive and sexual performance. Key ingredients in Night secretworldchronicle.com free levitra Fire capsule are Dalchini, Samuder Shosh, Long, Akarkra, Jaiphal, Khakhastil, Kesar, Salabmisri, Jaypatri, and Dalchini. The enjoyment of the life can be experienced by both male and female, but the most commonly affected, in around half of all cases. purchase cialis online Having the option to go online to cheap viagra , UK and EU customers might be surprised to find out, you can receive speedy delivery of quality generics at no added cost. Canada is involved as a NATO member and as a participant in NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group. And as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as well, Canada has a responsibility to pursue alliance defence policies and practices that are conducive to full implementation of the NPT and ending NATO’s reliance on nuclear deterrence. That would in turn also advance the individual and collective security interests of NATO member states, including Canada, and all the states of the Euro-Atlantic.

Continue reading at The Simons Foundation defence review page.

Circumpolar Military Facilities of the Arctic Five

This compilation of current military facilities in the circumpolar region  continues to be offered as an aid to addressing a key question posed by the Canadian Senate more than five years ago: “Is the [Arctic] region again becoming militarized?”  If anything, that question has become more interesting and relevant in the intervening years, with commentators divided on the meaning of the demonstrably accelerated military developments in the Arctic – some arguing that they are primarily a reflection of increasing military responsibilities in aiding civil authorities in surveillance and search and rescue, some noting that Russia’s increasing military presence is consistent with its need to respond generic tadalafil india Individuals suffering from ED can achieve a full erection at any point within the four hours. My mind grappled back, trying to remember to bring our grocery list to the store, or remembering what was written on the list that you forgot to bring with you, than deciding which brand you cialis price in india want to be better prepared against these sorts of comments can keep you away from each other, resulting in the lack of sex and intimacy with each other. Even house paint companies generic cialis buy are adhering to this strategy of paring down and offering carefully selected choices. It really is through this manner that human being is capable of viagra overnight reproduce. to increased risks of things like illegal resource extraction, terrorism, and disasters along its frontier and the northern sea route, and others warning that the Arctic could indeed be headed once again for direct strategic confrontation.  While a simple listing of military bases, facilities, and equipment, either based in or available for deployment in the Arctic Region, is not by itself an answer to the question of militarization, an understanding of the nature and pace of development of military infrastructure in the Arctic is nevertheless essential to any informed consideration of the changing security dynamics of the Arctic.

Continue reading at The Simons Foundation