weapons
"I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral
down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear annihilation." (Dallaire)
Subject: [Pugw:Forum] Speech by Senator Romeo Dallaire in the Senate
ofCanada advocating abolition of nuclear weapons
National Pugwash Groups: If appropriate, please forward this message to the
members of your group.
x---------------------------------------x
Dear Pugwash Colleagues;
On April 17, member of the Canadian Pugwash Group, including Senator
Douglas Roche (ret), {also Chairman of MPI) , and members of a number of
other Canadian peace groups. were in the gallery of the Senate of Canada to
hear a very important speech by Senator Romeo Dallaire, and to support him
by their presence. He spoke to a resolution previously filed, as you will
see the text below. In addition the response of Senator Lowell Murray is
included. The Senate debate will continue. Note that the presence of the
NGO groups was recognized by the Speaker of the House, and also at the
beginning of Senator Dallaire's speech. He also drew attention to the 50th
Anniversary of Pugwash, and it is important to note also that Senator
Dallaire is the Honourary Patron of the Pugwash Peace Exchange, and will
have a mjaor role in the planned program of July 5, 6 and 7, 2007 In Pugwash
Nova Scotia, Canada. In addition to the speech, Senator Dallaire also held
a press conference earlier the same day.
For Senator Dallaire and his staff, this is not a "once-time-only"
presentation but is the beginning of a major campaign which he will
undertake. On behalf of the Canadian Pugwash Group, we want to express our
heartfelt appreciation for the stand he has taken.
From:
Adele Buckley
Chair, Canadian Pugwash Group
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 39th Parliament,
Volume 143, Issue 85
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
Motion Urging Government to Take Leading Role in Reinvigorating Nuclear
Disarmament-Debate Adjourned
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire, pursuant to notice of March 29, 2007, moved:
That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to take a leading role in
the reinvigoration of the urgent matter of nuclear disarmament in accordance
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the Preparatory Committee
Meetings scheduled to convene April 30 to May 11, 2007 in Vienna which act
as a prelude to the next Treaty Review Conference in 2010; and
That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to take a global leadership
role in the campaign of eradicating the dire threat to humanity posed by
nuclear weapons.
He said: Honourable senators, may I first, before introducing the subject,
recognize that in the gallery we still have our ex-colleague Senator Roche
and representatives of non-governmental organizations who are involved in
the efforts to eliminate the use of nuclear weapons. They have demonstrated
an enormous amount of patience, and I applaud them and thank them for
staying on and demonstrating that perseverance as we have an opportunity to
discuss and present this motion.
I present this motion in regard to non-nuclear proliferation and,
ultimately, the eradication of the use of nuclear weapons. Today is the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I
consider the presence and use of nuclear weapons to be an aberration of
human rights. It is also the fiftieth anniversary of the Pugwash movement to
control and, ultimately, eradicate the use of nuclear weapons, so it is in
that atmosphere that I would like to present this motion.
Nuclear weapons are the most extreme, massive violation of human rights
imaginable. These weapons of mass destruction are immoral, indiscriminate,
and they violate the right of every human being to basic peace and security.
In its advisory opinion in 1996, the International Court of Justice ruled
unanimously that the threat or use of nuclear weapons "would generally be
contrary" to humanitarian and other international law regulating the conduct
of warfare and that states have a legal obligation to disarm.
Only nuclear weapons can kill hundreds of millions of people in a few hours
and potentially bring about the end of life on our planet, and we discussed
Kyoto. Contrary to popular propaganda, it is the nature of these weapons
themselves that is evil and not certain peoples who may acquire them. Any
possession of weapons designed to cause the massive annihilation of human
beings is wrong and cannot be made right by specious arguments regarding
deterrence. We have reached the point where no single state can operate
alone; we must work together to create global security and to prevent global
destruction.
The public of Canada and around the world are grossly uninformed as to the
dire situation we all face, which has been compared to being asleep at the
controls of a fast moving aircraft that is running rapidly out of fuel. Each
day we are threatened with 27,000 nuclear weapons; approximately 2,500 of
these are capable of being fired in less than 30 minutes. The number of
nuclear-capable states is in danger of increasing well beyond eight or nine,
and the potential exists for many regional nuclear arms races.
More than 30 countries, including Canada, are members of alliances that rely
on nuclear weapons as part of their security.
The North Korean nuclear test of October 9, 2006, uncertainty concerning
Iran's nuclear program, proposed modernization of nuclear weapons at
extensive costs and the threat of nuclear terrorism pose new security
challenges to us all.
The nuclear non-proliferation regime created in 1970 is in danger due to the
following: a failed 2005 review conference - they are held every five years;
states that possess nuclear weapons or who refuse to sign the treaty; the
2006 United States-India nuclear deal, which permits India to produce more
nuclear weapons; and, a denial by nuclear weapons states to honour their
legal obligations to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals,
essentially, to disarm in the nuclear sense. We are poised precariously on
the precipice of a frightening cascade of nuclear weapons proliferation.
At the end of January this year, the bulletin of the atomic scientists
advanced the hand of its doomsday clock to five minutes to nuclear midnight
due to the increased potential of accidental or intentional nuclear
exchange. Leading scientists around the globe agree that a nuclear incident
is inevitable through deliberate acts or accident. We have narrowly escaped
nuclear Holocaust on several occasions due to computer or human error in the
past, and trust me when I state that.
Bipartisan, distinguished American cold warriors such as Mr. Schultz, Mr.
Perry, Mr. Kissinger and even Mr. Nunn have recently made 180-degree turns
and now cry out against the myth of nuclear deterrence and plead for
abolition of "the world's most suicidal, genocidal and ecocidal weapons"
systems. The moral weight of the Nobel Peace Laureates has been applied
recently to an international appeal calling for the reduction of nuclear
threat. The warning signs are all there.
(1730)
[Translation]
The world has finally become aware of the threat humans pose to the
environment. There are inherent links between the environment and nuclear
weapons. Without global security, it is simply impossible to achieve the
cooperation that must exist between countries to remedy environmental
problems. Scientists agree that a single, isolated nuclear accident could
cause irreversible damage to our already fragile climate. If we do not take
action immediately, it may become impossible to correct environmental
problems. The world must immediately recognize the threat that nuclear
weapons pose to the survival of humanity, and to what extent the environment
could be permanently destroyed by the use of these weapons. What is more,
these weapons are not free.
Since the end of the Cold War, some $12 trillion has been spent on
developing technology that is powerful enough to blow up our planet several
times over. This disgraceful and immoral waste of global resources continues
to escalate today. Countries that already have nuclear weapons want to
modernize them. To what end? Consider how these funds could be used to
promote peace and security around the world, if only they were used to feed,
educate, care for and create jobs for the less fortunate.
What steps should we be taking? What tools do we have at our disposal? A
nuclear non-proliferation treaty - the last, best hope the world has of
eliminating the nuclear nightmare - is within reach. The Non-Proliferation
Treaty is the most powerful international treaty. In October 2006, the UN
General Assembly voted 168 to 4 in favour of abolishing nuclear weapons.
Canada must take a leadership role at the Non-Proliferation Treaty
preparatory committee meetings to be held in Vienna from April 30 to May 11,
in order to champion not proliferation, but eradication, which is covered by
this treaty.
Recently, attention has focussed on the threat of proliferation, to the
point where people have forgotten the crucial issue of nuclear disarmament.
In the treaty, these two issues are inextricably linked. States that do not
possess nuclear weapons have agreed not to acquire any, although they still
have the right to use peaceful, civilian applications of nuclear technology
such as nuclear energy and medicine, whereas states that do possess nuclear
weapons have agreed to eliminate their nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, we are
modernizing our nuclear weapons.
Non-proliferation requires disarmament. We have to continue to exert
pressure so that states possessing nuclear weapons comply with both aspects
of the treaty and, in due course, keep the promise they made more than 35
years ago to disarm. Canada must urge all the other non-nuclear-weapon
states to adopt and implement the additional protocol of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which today constitutes the benchmark for monitoring
compliance with the treaty.
Inspections must be carried out, and states that violate the terms of the
treaty must be condemned and held to account before the international
community. I suggest that we must negotiate the abolition of nuclear weapons
by means of a convention like the treaties against land mines and chemical
and biological weapons. The treaty simply does not go far enough. It lacks
the teeth to enforce the basic expression of our human right to security:
disarmament and the destruction of nuclear weapons. It does not prohibit
outright the possession of nuclear weapons and makes no reference to their
legality. This is not covered in the treaty.
Most member states of the United Nations are calling for immediate
negotiations on a convention on nuclear weapons that would ban the
development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat
and even the ultimate use of nuclear weapons. No physical or financial
obstacle is preventing us, within a decade or less, from freeing the world
from the man-made scourge of nuclear weapons. The only things lacking are
moral leadership and political will.
Why does Canada, as a middle power that does not have any nuclear weapons,
not take this leadership role and initiate the process to abolish and
eliminate these nuclear weapons? In my opinion, we should intensify our
efforts to ensure the coming into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty and thereby prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and a
possible arms race. Some 177 countries have signed the treaty, but ten more
must ratify it for it to come into force. A treaty banning the production of
fissile material for the purposes of weapons production must be negotiated
without delay.
Have we really allowed the situation between the United States and India to
get to a point where these two countries have ultimately agreed to allow
India to increase its stockpile of nuclear weapons and, in doing so, create
an arms race in another area of the world that is extremely sensitive to any
sort of conflict?
We must intensify our campaign to decrease the alert level of the nuclear
arsenal in the United States and Russia and to eliminate the option of
launch-on-alert policies in nuclear war plans. This launch-on-alert option
determines, in a matter of five minutes, whether the enemy threat of using
nuclear weapons is legitimate or not. If the threat is legitimate and real,
nuclear weapons are deployed before the enemy nuclear weapons can neutralize
them.
We must also encourage all the nuclear powers to adopt non-use policies
regarding non-nuclear-weapon States. Why is there such urgency when the cold
war is over? Or is there another war we are unaware of and for which these
nuclear stockpiles absolutely must be maintained and updated at a cost of
billions of dollars?
Especially since the procurement policies of countries with nuclear weapons
accommodate processes for creating new, sophisticated, more effective
nuclear weapons, if we can look at it that way. It is brazen hypocrisy to
ask other countries to give up their nuclear weapons and to forego
purchasing others when these weapons are given greater prominence in one's
own security policies. The modernization of nuclear weapons for offensive
purposes is quite simply scandalous. It is just incredible that the five
permanent members of the Security Council are major users and owners of
nuclear weapons. They do not see that it would be useful to promote the
treaty to eliminate the use of nuclear weapons and therefore these weapons
continue to be improved.
We should stop supporting the nuclear policies of NATO, which are
incompatible with our obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty. On the one hand, we are against nuclear weapons and we say so. On
the other hand, we are a member of an organization with a treaty based on
the availability of nuclear weapons. There is actually an intolerable
contradiction between our commitments under the treaty and our membership in
an alliance which gives such importance to nuclear weapons in its security
policies.
(1750)
In the post-cold war world, there is no longer any reason to state that
nuclear weapons play a vital role within the alliance.
[English]
The nuclear disarmament field is not an easy one in which to work. There is
an almost pathological reaction to such a horrific topic, which is, in fact,
denial. It is this riddle that can only be overcome with the help of the
brave people in the NGO community who have worked selflessly for countless
hours, years and, in some cases, decades to save civilization from this
weapon of self-destruction.
On behalf of all Canadians, I salute Senator Roche and his colleagues for
their ongoing work and for making us aware of the fact that we are living
with that threat not only to our security but also to our fundamental
ability to live on this planet, for the planet itself is at risk.
What is the way ahead? There is an exciting international campaign underway
this month to promote global awareness of the dire threat to humanity by
nuclear weapons. I am a proud endorser of the international campaign to
abolish nuclear weapons, and I am excited at working with International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Mayors for Peace in their
attempt to educate a new generation of people about the true nature of
nuclear weapons.
I firmly believe that Canada's youth are best suited to be the leading
advocates of change. We need to demonstrate that a nuclear weapons-free
world is not only within our grasp but is also absolutely essential for our
common survival. Nuclear weapons are not an essential requirement of
security in this era.
The Canadian launch of ICANw will be announced on April 30. Their website,
www.icanw.org, indicates a number of ways that each and every Canadian can
participate to make a real difference.
Honourable senators, let me remind you of a bit of history and bring you to
the current time with Pugwash, a great little fishing town in Nova Scotia.
The Pugwash Conferences on Sciences and World Affairs was founded 50 years
ago at the height of the Cold War. In 1957, Canadian industrialist Cyrus
Eaton, inspired by the 1955 manifesto of Albert Einstein and Bertrand
Russell, brought scientists from East and West together to his summer home
in the village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia.
In 1995, the Pugwash movement and its founder, Sir Joseph Rotblat, were
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their significant contributions toward the
goal of nuclear disarmament.
From July 5 to 7 this summer, the Pugwash Peace Exchange, the Canadian
Pugwash Group and the Pugwash Park Commission are celebrating the importance
of this piece of Canadian history at Thinker's Lodge in Pugwash, Nova
Scotia. They are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the efforts to move
this world to a sane plane of nuclear disarmament.
The Middle Powers Initiative, MPI, chaired by Senator Douglas Roche, a
former Canadian disarmament ambassador, is a key group of non-governmental
organizations that works with middle power governments - of which we are not
an insignificant one - to encourage nuclear weapons states to disarm. This
July, MPI and Pugwash are co-sponsoring an international conference on
revitalizing nuclear disarmament. Would it not be interesting to bring the
1960s "ban the bomb" effort into the modern era?
The Pugwash Peace Exchange is establishing an international peace centre on
this hallowed Canadian ground where people of all ages, from all walks of
life, and from all corners of the world can come to learn about peace and
how they can make a difference. I am very proud to be the honorary patron of
this organization, and I am excited to be taking part in these festivities.
To conclude, at the heart of this matter is the frank realization that we
must invent a new kind of global security, one not based on erroneous
concepts of deterrence which only serve to augment our mutual lack of
security. Increasingly, our individual actions have global consequences and
only a global solution can possibly extricate us from this horrible
predicament of having the ability to literally eliminate ourselves.
In the words of Martin Luther King:
I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral
down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear annihilation.
We must all learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.
I have seen with my own eyes genocide by machete. Although the machete would
certainly not be perceived as a weapon of mass destruction, in 100 days it
was able to kill 800,000 people. Imagine what nuclear genocide would look
like. Any peace based upon the threat of genocide is an immoral
bastardization of the concept of peace.
Honourable senators, we have reached a fork in the road of humanity. One
path leads to certain apocalypse, the other to a peaceful cooperative world.
Let Canada, this leading middle power, blaze the trail down the road of a
sustainable future by respecting human rights and doing all in our power to
eliminate, to eradicate, to destroy nuclear weapons.
I am not an alarmist. I am a soldier, conscious of the capabilities and the
vulnerabilities of those systems. This is the number one threat to the
future of mankind. In the past, my warnings have fallen on deaf ears, with
tragic results in Africa. I implore each and every person who hears my words
today to take them to heart and to learn more, and to take action on the
fact that we are more vulnerable to self-destruction in this era than we
were in an era that we considered very dangerous, that is, the Cold War.
One advantage of our technological age is that people can make their
political voices heard and governments have no choice but to listen or fall.
Significant expressions of public concern, both in quality and quantity, can
spur governments to increase funding and take actions in response. Our time
is running out. The nuclear arms race can have no winner but will lead to
the loss of all that we cherish. The very future of our children,
grandchildren and the not-yet-born swings in the balance. Surely our
destructive capability will not overcome our desire to live, love and
prosper. Disarmament is the litmus test of our humanity. We cannot afford to
fail in this era. We must not fail, for we are committing genocide upon
ourselves.
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, we are almost at six o'clock. I
will take the occasion to make one or two brief preliminary remarks, after
which, with your indulgence, I shall propose the adjournment of the debate
and return to it on another day.
Let me join with Senator Dallaire in greeting our old friend Senator Doug
Roche. Senator Roche served through five Parliaments, I believe, as an
elected member of the House of Commons and through several Parliaments here
in the Senate. Between times he was, as Senator Dallaire noted, Canada's
ambassador for disarmament, in which capacity his passionate commitment and
advocacy at home and abroad to the cause of nuclear disarmament is well
remembered and well respected and appreciated.
I want to thank Senator Dallaire for bringing this motion forward. It could
not be more timely. This is a cause that desperately needs now a strong
injection of new intellectual and political energy, and I will argue that
there is a terrific opportunity and responsibility for Canada, and for the
present government of Canada in the present circumstances, to take the
leadership on this matter, if it chooses to do so.
(1800)
We have moved on from the days when we had a Cold War standoff between the
two superpowers with the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. There was
some strategic coherence or rationale to that doctrine, but as we were
reminded by the former cabinet secretaries, Kissinger, Schultz and Perry,
and former Senator Nunn in the declaration to which Senator Dallaire
referred, that doctrine is obsolete and we are now perhaps arguably in a
situation far more dangerous than we knew even during the Cold War.
I do not have the military or defence policy background of Senator Dallaire,
but I will argue the case for an injection of new energy and especially of
political will in this country and elsewhere, for it has been political in
the past. Any reading of history tells us that political will has been the
prime contributing factor whenever we have been able to make progress in
this world on arms control and disarmament.
With those few remarks, honourable senators, and with your indulgence, I
will propose the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Senator Murray, debate adjourned.
The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.
_____
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/085db_2007-04-17-E.
htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1#TOP#TOP
m_G
down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear annihilation." (Dallaire)
Subject: [Pugw:Forum] Speech by Senator Romeo Dallaire in the Senate
ofCanada advocating abolition of nuclear weapons
National Pugwash Groups: If appropriate, please forward this message to the
members of your group.
x---------------------------------------x
Dear Pugwash Colleagues;
On April 17, member of the Canadian Pugwash Group, including Senator
Douglas Roche (ret), {also Chairman of MPI) , and members of a number of
other Canadian peace groups. were in the gallery of the Senate of Canada to
hear a very important speech by Senator Romeo Dallaire, and to support him
by their presence. He spoke to a resolution previously filed, as you will
see the text below. In addition the response of Senator Lowell Murray is
included. The Senate debate will continue. Note that the presence of the
NGO groups was recognized by the Speaker of the House, and also at the
beginning of Senator Dallaire's speech. He also drew attention to the 50th
Anniversary of Pugwash, and it is important to note also that Senator
Dallaire is the Honourary Patron of the Pugwash Peace Exchange, and will
have a mjaor role in the planned program of July 5, 6 and 7, 2007 In Pugwash
Nova Scotia, Canada. In addition to the speech, Senator Dallaire also held
a press conference earlier the same day.
For Senator Dallaire and his staff, this is not a "once-time-only"
presentation but is the beginning of a major campaign which he will
undertake. On behalf of the Canadian Pugwash Group, we want to express our
heartfelt appreciation for the stand he has taken.
From:
Adele Buckley
Chair, Canadian Pugwash Group
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 39th Parliament,
Volume 143, Issue 85
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker
Motion Urging Government to Take Leading Role in Reinvigorating Nuclear
Disarmament-Debate Adjourned
Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire, pursuant to notice of March 29, 2007, moved:
That the Senate call on the Government of Canada to take a leading role in
the reinvigoration of the urgent matter of nuclear disarmament in accordance
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the Preparatory Committee
Meetings scheduled to convene April 30 to May 11, 2007 in Vienna which act
as a prelude to the next Treaty Review Conference in 2010; and
That the Senate urge the Government of Canada to take a global leadership
role in the campaign of eradicating the dire threat to humanity posed by
nuclear weapons.
He said: Honourable senators, may I first, before introducing the subject,
recognize that in the gallery we still have our ex-colleague Senator Roche
and representatives of non-governmental organizations who are involved in
the efforts to eliminate the use of nuclear weapons. They have demonstrated
an enormous amount of patience, and I applaud them and thank them for
staying on and demonstrating that perseverance as we have an opportunity to
discuss and present this motion.
I present this motion in regard to non-nuclear proliferation and,
ultimately, the eradication of the use of nuclear weapons. Today is the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I
consider the presence and use of nuclear weapons to be an aberration of
human rights. It is also the fiftieth anniversary of the Pugwash movement to
control and, ultimately, eradicate the use of nuclear weapons, so it is in
that atmosphere that I would like to present this motion.
Nuclear weapons are the most extreme, massive violation of human rights
imaginable. These weapons of mass destruction are immoral, indiscriminate,
and they violate the right of every human being to basic peace and security.
In its advisory opinion in 1996, the International Court of Justice ruled
unanimously that the threat or use of nuclear weapons "would generally be
contrary" to humanitarian and other international law regulating the conduct
of warfare and that states have a legal obligation to disarm.
Only nuclear weapons can kill hundreds of millions of people in a few hours
and potentially bring about the end of life on our planet, and we discussed
Kyoto. Contrary to popular propaganda, it is the nature of these weapons
themselves that is evil and not certain peoples who may acquire them. Any
possession of weapons designed to cause the massive annihilation of human
beings is wrong and cannot be made right by specious arguments regarding
deterrence. We have reached the point where no single state can operate
alone; we must work together to create global security and to prevent global
destruction.
The public of Canada and around the world are grossly uninformed as to the
dire situation we all face, which has been compared to being asleep at the
controls of a fast moving aircraft that is running rapidly out of fuel. Each
day we are threatened with 27,000 nuclear weapons; approximately 2,500 of
these are capable of being fired in less than 30 minutes. The number of
nuclear-capable states is in danger of increasing well beyond eight or nine,
and the potential exists for many regional nuclear arms races.
More than 30 countries, including Canada, are members of alliances that rely
on nuclear weapons as part of their security.
The North Korean nuclear test of October 9, 2006, uncertainty concerning
Iran's nuclear program, proposed modernization of nuclear weapons at
extensive costs and the threat of nuclear terrorism pose new security
challenges to us all.
The nuclear non-proliferation regime created in 1970 is in danger due to the
following: a failed 2005 review conference - they are held every five years;
states that possess nuclear weapons or who refuse to sign the treaty; the
2006 United States-India nuclear deal, which permits India to produce more
nuclear weapons; and, a denial by nuclear weapons states to honour their
legal obligations to reduce and eliminate their nuclear arsenals,
essentially, to disarm in the nuclear sense. We are poised precariously on
the precipice of a frightening cascade of nuclear weapons proliferation.
At the end of January this year, the bulletin of the atomic scientists
advanced the hand of its doomsday clock to five minutes to nuclear midnight
due to the increased potential of accidental or intentional nuclear
exchange. Leading scientists around the globe agree that a nuclear incident
is inevitable through deliberate acts or accident. We have narrowly escaped
nuclear Holocaust on several occasions due to computer or human error in the
past, and trust me when I state that.
Bipartisan, distinguished American cold warriors such as Mr. Schultz, Mr.
Perry, Mr. Kissinger and even Mr. Nunn have recently made 180-degree turns
and now cry out against the myth of nuclear deterrence and plead for
abolition of "the world's most suicidal, genocidal and ecocidal weapons"
systems. The moral weight of the Nobel Peace Laureates has been applied
recently to an international appeal calling for the reduction of nuclear
threat. The warning signs are all there.
(1730)
[Translation]
The world has finally become aware of the threat humans pose to the
environment. There are inherent links between the environment and nuclear
weapons. Without global security, it is simply impossible to achieve the
cooperation that must exist between countries to remedy environmental
problems. Scientists agree that a single, isolated nuclear accident could
cause irreversible damage to our already fragile climate. If we do not take
action immediately, it may become impossible to correct environmental
problems. The world must immediately recognize the threat that nuclear
weapons pose to the survival of humanity, and to what extent the environment
could be permanently destroyed by the use of these weapons. What is more,
these weapons are not free.
Since the end of the Cold War, some $12 trillion has been spent on
developing technology that is powerful enough to blow up our planet several
times over. This disgraceful and immoral waste of global resources continues
to escalate today. Countries that already have nuclear weapons want to
modernize them. To what end? Consider how these funds could be used to
promote peace and security around the world, if only they were used to feed,
educate, care for and create jobs for the less fortunate.
What steps should we be taking? What tools do we have at our disposal? A
nuclear non-proliferation treaty - the last, best hope the world has of
eliminating the nuclear nightmare - is within reach. The Non-Proliferation
Treaty is the most powerful international treaty. In October 2006, the UN
General Assembly voted 168 to 4 in favour of abolishing nuclear weapons.
Canada must take a leadership role at the Non-Proliferation Treaty
preparatory committee meetings to be held in Vienna from April 30 to May 11,
in order to champion not proliferation, but eradication, which is covered by
this treaty.
Recently, attention has focussed on the threat of proliferation, to the
point where people have forgotten the crucial issue of nuclear disarmament.
In the treaty, these two issues are inextricably linked. States that do not
possess nuclear weapons have agreed not to acquire any, although they still
have the right to use peaceful, civilian applications of nuclear technology
such as nuclear energy and medicine, whereas states that do possess nuclear
weapons have agreed to eliminate their nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, we are
modernizing our nuclear weapons.
Non-proliferation requires disarmament. We have to continue to exert
pressure so that states possessing nuclear weapons comply with both aspects
of the treaty and, in due course, keep the promise they made more than 35
years ago to disarm. Canada must urge all the other non-nuclear-weapon
states to adopt and implement the additional protocol of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, which today constitutes the benchmark for monitoring
compliance with the treaty.
Inspections must be carried out, and states that violate the terms of the
treaty must be condemned and held to account before the international
community. I suggest that we must negotiate the abolition of nuclear weapons
by means of a convention like the treaties against land mines and chemical
and biological weapons. The treaty simply does not go far enough. It lacks
the teeth to enforce the basic expression of our human right to security:
disarmament and the destruction of nuclear weapons. It does not prohibit
outright the possession of nuclear weapons and makes no reference to their
legality. This is not covered in the treaty.
Most member states of the United Nations are calling for immediate
negotiations on a convention on nuclear weapons that would ban the
development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat
and even the ultimate use of nuclear weapons. No physical or financial
obstacle is preventing us, within a decade or less, from freeing the world
from the man-made scourge of nuclear weapons. The only things lacking are
moral leadership and political will.
Why does Canada, as a middle power that does not have any nuclear weapons,
not take this leadership role and initiate the process to abolish and
eliminate these nuclear weapons? In my opinion, we should intensify our
efforts to ensure the coming into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty and thereby prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and a
possible arms race. Some 177 countries have signed the treaty, but ten more
must ratify it for it to come into force. A treaty banning the production of
fissile material for the purposes of weapons production must be negotiated
without delay.
Have we really allowed the situation between the United States and India to
get to a point where these two countries have ultimately agreed to allow
India to increase its stockpile of nuclear weapons and, in doing so, create
an arms race in another area of the world that is extremely sensitive to any
sort of conflict?
We must intensify our campaign to decrease the alert level of the nuclear
arsenal in the United States and Russia and to eliminate the option of
launch-on-alert policies in nuclear war plans. This launch-on-alert option
determines, in a matter of five minutes, whether the enemy threat of using
nuclear weapons is legitimate or not. If the threat is legitimate and real,
nuclear weapons are deployed before the enemy nuclear weapons can neutralize
them.
We must also encourage all the nuclear powers to adopt non-use policies
regarding non-nuclear-weapon States. Why is there such urgency when the cold
war is over? Or is there another war we are unaware of and for which these
nuclear stockpiles absolutely must be maintained and updated at a cost of
billions of dollars?
Especially since the procurement policies of countries with nuclear weapons
accommodate processes for creating new, sophisticated, more effective
nuclear weapons, if we can look at it that way. It is brazen hypocrisy to
ask other countries to give up their nuclear weapons and to forego
purchasing others when these weapons are given greater prominence in one's
own security policies. The modernization of nuclear weapons for offensive
purposes is quite simply scandalous. It is just incredible that the five
permanent members of the Security Council are major users and owners of
nuclear weapons. They do not see that it would be useful to promote the
treaty to eliminate the use of nuclear weapons and therefore these weapons
continue to be improved.
We should stop supporting the nuclear policies of NATO, which are
incompatible with our obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty. On the one hand, we are against nuclear weapons and we say so. On
the other hand, we are a member of an organization with a treaty based on
the availability of nuclear weapons. There is actually an intolerable
contradiction between our commitments under the treaty and our membership in
an alliance which gives such importance to nuclear weapons in its security
policies.
(1750)
In the post-cold war world, there is no longer any reason to state that
nuclear weapons play a vital role within the alliance.
[English]
The nuclear disarmament field is not an easy one in which to work. There is
an almost pathological reaction to such a horrific topic, which is, in fact,
denial. It is this riddle that can only be overcome with the help of the
brave people in the NGO community who have worked selflessly for countless
hours, years and, in some cases, decades to save civilization from this
weapon of self-destruction.
On behalf of all Canadians, I salute Senator Roche and his colleagues for
their ongoing work and for making us aware of the fact that we are living
with that threat not only to our security but also to our fundamental
ability to live on this planet, for the planet itself is at risk.
What is the way ahead? There is an exciting international campaign underway
this month to promote global awareness of the dire threat to humanity by
nuclear weapons. I am a proud endorser of the international campaign to
abolish nuclear weapons, and I am excited at working with International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Mayors for Peace in their
attempt to educate a new generation of people about the true nature of
nuclear weapons.
I firmly believe that Canada's youth are best suited to be the leading
advocates of change. We need to demonstrate that a nuclear weapons-free
world is not only within our grasp but is also absolutely essential for our
common survival. Nuclear weapons are not an essential requirement of
security in this era.
The Canadian launch of ICANw will be announced on April 30. Their website,
www.icanw.org, indicates a number of ways that each and every Canadian can
participate to make a real difference.
Honourable senators, let me remind you of a bit of history and bring you to
the current time with Pugwash, a great little fishing town in Nova Scotia.
The Pugwash Conferences on Sciences and World Affairs was founded 50 years
ago at the height of the Cold War. In 1957, Canadian industrialist Cyrus
Eaton, inspired by the 1955 manifesto of Albert Einstein and Bertrand
Russell, brought scientists from East and West together to his summer home
in the village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia.
In 1995, the Pugwash movement and its founder, Sir Joseph Rotblat, were
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their significant contributions toward the
goal of nuclear disarmament.
From July 5 to 7 this summer, the Pugwash Peace Exchange, the Canadian
Pugwash Group and the Pugwash Park Commission are celebrating the importance
of this piece of Canadian history at Thinker's Lodge in Pugwash, Nova
Scotia. They are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the efforts to move
this world to a sane plane of nuclear disarmament.
The Middle Powers Initiative, MPI, chaired by Senator Douglas Roche, a
former Canadian disarmament ambassador, is a key group of non-governmental
organizations that works with middle power governments - of which we are not
an insignificant one - to encourage nuclear weapons states to disarm. This
July, MPI and Pugwash are co-sponsoring an international conference on
revitalizing nuclear disarmament. Would it not be interesting to bring the
1960s "ban the bomb" effort into the modern era?
The Pugwash Peace Exchange is establishing an international peace centre on
this hallowed Canadian ground where people of all ages, from all walks of
life, and from all corners of the world can come to learn about peace and
how they can make a difference. I am very proud to be the honorary patron of
this organization, and I am excited to be taking part in these festivities.
To conclude, at the heart of this matter is the frank realization that we
must invent a new kind of global security, one not based on erroneous
concepts of deterrence which only serve to augment our mutual lack of
security. Increasingly, our individual actions have global consequences and
only a global solution can possibly extricate us from this horrible
predicament of having the ability to literally eliminate ourselves.
In the words of Martin Luther King:
I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral
down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear annihilation.
We must all learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.
I have seen with my own eyes genocide by machete. Although the machete would
certainly not be perceived as a weapon of mass destruction, in 100 days it
was able to kill 800,000 people. Imagine what nuclear genocide would look
like. Any peace based upon the threat of genocide is an immoral
bastardization of the concept of peace.
Honourable senators, we have reached a fork in the road of humanity. One
path leads to certain apocalypse, the other to a peaceful cooperative world.
Let Canada, this leading middle power, blaze the trail down the road of a
sustainable future by respecting human rights and doing all in our power to
eliminate, to eradicate, to destroy nuclear weapons.
I am not an alarmist. I am a soldier, conscious of the capabilities and the
vulnerabilities of those systems. This is the number one threat to the
future of mankind. In the past, my warnings have fallen on deaf ears, with
tragic results in Africa. I implore each and every person who hears my words
today to take them to heart and to learn more, and to take action on the
fact that we are more vulnerable to self-destruction in this era than we
were in an era that we considered very dangerous, that is, the Cold War.
One advantage of our technological age is that people can make their
political voices heard and governments have no choice but to listen or fall.
Significant expressions of public concern, both in quality and quantity, can
spur governments to increase funding and take actions in response. Our time
is running out. The nuclear arms race can have no winner but will lead to
the loss of all that we cherish. The very future of our children,
grandchildren and the not-yet-born swings in the balance. Surely our
destructive capability will not overcome our desire to live, love and
prosper. Disarmament is the litmus test of our humanity. We cannot afford to
fail in this era. We must not fail, for we are committing genocide upon
ourselves.
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, we are almost at six o'clock. I
will take the occasion to make one or two brief preliminary remarks, after
which, with your indulgence, I shall propose the adjournment of the debate
and return to it on another day.
Let me join with Senator Dallaire in greeting our old friend Senator Doug
Roche. Senator Roche served through five Parliaments, I believe, as an
elected member of the House of Commons and through several Parliaments here
in the Senate. Between times he was, as Senator Dallaire noted, Canada's
ambassador for disarmament, in which capacity his passionate commitment and
advocacy at home and abroad to the cause of nuclear disarmament is well
remembered and well respected and appreciated.
I want to thank Senator Dallaire for bringing this motion forward. It could
not be more timely. This is a cause that desperately needs now a strong
injection of new intellectual and political energy, and I will argue that
there is a terrific opportunity and responsibility for Canada, and for the
present government of Canada in the present circumstances, to take the
leadership on this matter, if it chooses to do so.
(1800)
We have moved on from the days when we had a Cold War standoff between the
two superpowers with the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. There was
some strategic coherence or rationale to that doctrine, but as we were
reminded by the former cabinet secretaries, Kissinger, Schultz and Perry,
and former Senator Nunn in the declaration to which Senator Dallaire
referred, that doctrine is obsolete and we are now perhaps arguably in a
situation far more dangerous than we knew even during the Cold War.
I do not have the military or defence policy background of Senator Dallaire,
but I will argue the case for an injection of new energy and especially of
political will in this country and elsewhere, for it has been political in
the past. Any reading of history tells us that political will has been the
prime contributing factor whenever we have been able to make progress in
this world on arms control and disarmament.
With those few remarks, honourable senators, and with your indulgence, I
will propose the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Senator Murray, debate adjourned.
The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, April 18, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.
_____
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/085db_2007-04-17-E.
htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1#TOP#TOP
m_G