Tell Harper: Don’t Deploy Laser Weapons

The Canadian military is about to deploy low-power laser weapons, also known as “laser dazzlers,” to Afghanistan. Experts have raised serious concerns about the dangers these devices pose to civilians – including potentially blinding children.

Just like notorious taser weapons, there are concerns that these laser dazzlers have not been properly tested and could have disastrous consequences for Afghans – and possibly our own soldiers.

I urge you to read the news article by Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese (his blog is highly recommended)  below – published last weekend in newspapers across Canada.

If you have not already done so, please send your letter to Prime Minister Harper through Ceasefire.ca right away at http://www.ceasefire.ca, urging him not to deploy laser dazzlers to Afghanistan.

If there is enough public outcry against these weapons, it is possible that we can stop them from being sent to Afghanistan. Please send your letter, and urge other to send letters as well.

Thanks for whatever you can do,

Steven Staples
Rideau Institute and
founder of Ceasefire.ca
Military expects green light for laser dazzlers; Weapons are illegal, will set bad example, critics say

David Pugliese
July 12, 2008

Armed with legal advice that the systems can be classified as warning devices, the Canadian military wants to proceed with the purchase of laser weapons designed to temporarily blind people.

But a group opposed to the purchase of the equipment says any use of the so-called “laser dazzlers” in Afghanistan violates international law and sets a dangerous precedent.

The senior military leadership has recommended the purchase, and the $10-million project is now awaiting approval from Defence Minister Peter MacKay. Defence insiders say the military’s lawyers examined the legalities of using the devices on Afghans, and concluded the systems are not laser weapons and can be deemed warning devices. MacKay is expected to approve the purchase.

But Anthony Salloum, program director at the Rideau Institute in Ottawa, said Canada would be violating its international obligations by using the dazzlers on Afghans. Canada has ratified a treaty that prevents the use of weapons that cause permanent blindness.

“These are laser weapons that can blind and, as tests by Penn State University have shown, can also cause second-and third-degree burns,” said Salloum, whose institute has criticized the government and military’s approach to the Afghanistan mission. It’s also leading a campaign to halt the purchase of the dazzlers.

The lasers are capable of “disrupting” the vision of a person 50 to 500 metres away, depending on the model used. Some manufacturers say the systems are entirely safe, while other officials who know the weapons acknowledge they can injure or blind people – but only when improperly used at close range.

Salloum said the Canadian military’s claim the dazzlers are simply warning devices sends a message to other nations, such as China, that such weapons are acceptable to use.

“Once Canada does this, it has set a dangerous precedent and opened up the field to other countries to do it,” argued Salloum. “They’ll be able to say, ‘Well, Canada uses them, so why shouldn’t we? We’re just going to rename them as warning devices instead of calling them weapons’.”

China has equipped its security forces with laser dazzlers for riot control, but has been criticized by human-rights groups for doing so.

Last August, it was reported that India’s army planned to acquire dazzlers. An Indian government defence research centre had developed two such systems for use in counter-insurgency operations, according to news reports. Laser devices have been used in the past to disrupt optical systems on vehicles, aircraft and missiles. But the use of smaller laser dazzlers on people has been relatively limited.

In 2006, the U.S. military confirmed it’s using dazzlers in Iraq, and officers have said the devices have helped save Iraqi lives.

The Canadian military wants to mount the dazzlers on rifles and vehicles, mainly for use in protecting convoys. It’s hoped the systems could result in fewer Afghan civilians – who don’t heed warnings to stop at checkpoints or to approach convoys – getting shot dead by soldiers.

Defence officials declined to be interviewed about laser dazzlers, but did issue an e-mail statement, which noted no approval has been given to acquire the systems. It did confirm, however, that the Canadian Forces is proposing to equip its troops in Afghanistan with such equipment.

“Laser dazzlers would allow our soldiers another non-lethal means to ensure that they have done all they can to warn Afghan civilian drivers and pedestrians from entering a critical zone in which deadly force could be used,” reads the e-mail from department spokeswoman Jillian Van Acker.

“We are confident that the proposed use of laser warning devices would not contravene any provision of international humanitarian law applicable to Canada.”

But Salloum questioned that claim.

To satisfy international obligations, Canada would be required to conduct various technical and medical tests to prove the weapons do not violate international law, he said.

“If these are so safe and so legal, then where is the evidence?” Salloum asked. “How come (Defence) is not releasing any of its reports and test materials to back up their claims?”

Scott McLeod of M.D. Charlton Company, a firm that hopes to bid on the program, said the dazzlers can save lives. Although such devices are not considered to be “eye safe,” he noted that if used properly, they won’t harm a person’s sight.

He noted that under the Geneva Convention, lasers can’t be used as weapons – only to mark targets and warn off individuals.

YOU WIN! Gov’t Blocks the Sale of Canadarm and Radarsat-2

May 9, 2008
YOU WIN! Yesterday the government listened to Canadians like you and confirmed its historic decision to block the Canadarm and RADARSAT-2 sell-off.

Watch Rideau Institute’s Anthony Salloum on CTV Canada AM, May 9, 2008

 

 

 

 

Please Help Stop the Sell-off of the CANADARM and RADARSAT-2 to a U.S. Space Weapons Corporation

UPDATE: Last week the government listened to Canadians like you and took the first step to block the Canadarm and Radarsat-2 sell-off.

That’s why I need your help – to keep ATK out of Canada, and to keep control of our world class space program.Should Canada’s environmental satellite be used for space weapons?

 

Make your donation now

Canada’s top scientific and environmental space science programs, the CANADARM and the remarkable RADARSAT-2 satellite, are being sold off to a U.S. weapons corporation.

The American corporation builds space and nuclear weapons systems, landmines, cluster bombs, depleted uranium weapons and Pentagon “black budget” programs.

RADARSAT-2 is a satellite designed to monitor climate change and Arctic sovereignty, but now it could be used for U.S. American space weapons programs. Please make your contribution to stop this from happening. 

In the 1990s the federal government made a terrible mistake by privatizing much of our space program. Now, MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) intends to sell off RADARSAT-2, the CANADARM, and other programs to Alliant Techsystems (ATK).

But the sale needs to be approved by the government. According to reports, the approval could be given before March 22 – if we do not act quickly.

We are launching an emergency action campaign and fund to stop the sale of RADARSAT-2 and CANADARM to ATK, and I need your help. In the coming days and weeks we will:

   • Lobby MPs to stop the sale of the CANADARM and RADARSAT-2 to ATK
   • Launch a media blitz to let Canadians know what is happening
   • Use legal challenges to try to block the sale 
   • Build a coalition of scientists, experts, labour leaders, diplomats and activists 

Please make your donation of $100, or whatever you can afford, at Ceasefire.ca. Or print off and mail this coupon.

Thank you for your support.

Steve Staples
Rideau Institute and founder of Ceasefire.ca

P.S. Please make your financial contribution now, and send your letter to Prime Minister Harper.

 

 

 

Stop the sale of CANADARM and RADARSAT-2

March 7, 2008

Dear Ceasefire.ca Supporter,

You might have heard or read this week that the iconic Canadian-built Canadarm and
RADARSAT-2 satellite may be sold off to the American arms builder Alliant Techsystems.

On Wednesday I appeared before the Commons Committee on Industry and warned the MPs that this would be a disaster for Canadian environmental protection, jobs, sovereignty, and our role in promoting the peaceful uses of space.

In January of this year, MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA) announced the sale of its information systems and space division to Alliant Techsystems, a U.S. company that describes itself as “the world’s leading manufacturer of rocket motor systems for space launch vehicles, strategic missiles, prompt global strike missiles, and missile defense interceptors.”

While Canada owned RADARSAT-1, the federal government entered into a privatization deal with MDA whereby the corporation would fully own its successor, RADARSAT-2. Canadian taxpayers contributed $430 million toward its development, but we now stand to lose the benefit of this remarkable satellite.

I ask you to join me in calling on Prime Minister Harper to do the right thing, and refuse to allow this deal to go forward. The deal could be approved by March 22 – please send your letter now.

Thanks for taking action.

Steve Staples

——————————————————————————–

‘An affront’
Outrage greets U.S. bid to buy Canada’s largest space firm; sale to include taxpayer-funded $524-million Radarsat-2 satellite

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=f8451a0d-907e-49a9-9e9f-7b758df52227&k=92252

by David Pugliese

Friday, March 07, 2008

CREDIT: Cole Garside, The Ottawa Citizen
Physicist Lawrence Morley wants the auditor general to probe the pending sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates’ space division to a U.S. firm because it would include the Radarsat-2 satellite, a piece of cutting-edge technology that has received millions in taxpayer funding.

The proposed purchase by a U.S. firm of Canada’s largest space company, and with it a $524-million high-tech satellite built mainly with taxpayers’ money, is being challenged by a growing number of scientists and engineers.

Lawrence Morley, one of Canada’s top geophysicists and the man who pushed the federal government to invest in what eventually became the Radarsat-2 satellite, is calling for the auditor general to probe what he calls a sweetheart deal that allows a private firm to sell off such a valuable spacecraft.

In addition, Hugh Thompson, a spacecraft systems engineer with MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, yesterday came forward to say the sale of the British Columbia company’s space division to a U.S. firm should be halted.

Two other engineers at the company have already quit in protest over the deal.

Marc Garneau, the first Canadian in space, also said earlier this week that he hopes the company’s space division will not be sold because that would represent a major loss of Canada’s space capabilities, built up over the years with large amounts of taxpayer funding.

At issue are plans by U.S. firm Alliant Techsystems to purchase MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates’ space and military assets for $1.325 billion. The firm is considered the backbone of Canada’s space industry.

With that deal, announced by both firms in early January, comes ownership of the recently launched Radarsat-2 satellite, the world’s most advanced radar imaging spacecraft. The $524-million Radarsat-2 was built by MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, but Canadian taxpayers funded most of that project.

Its technology, which allows the satellite to produce images of objects the size of a car from 800 kilometres in space, is seen as key to Canada’s security and science efforts. Radarsat-2 can be used for agricultural, environmental and forestry purposes as well as to measure the thickness of ice in the North.

However, in the late 1990s, the Canadian Space Agency transferred ownership of the satellite to MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (MDA).

Mr. Morley said the company is simply doing what’s best for its shareholders and earning a profit from selling the satellite and other technology. But he pointed out that someone has to be looking out for Canadians.

“A mistake was made by the Canadian Space Agency when they gave this sweetheart deal to MDA and transferred the ownership of all the technology and the satellite, and all the data to them,” said the 88-year-old scientist and Order of Canada winner. “That’s a thing for the auditor general to look into on whether it was a mistake or whether it was a government decision.”

Two employees of the company, Paul Cottle and Trevor Williams, have quit their jobs in protest of the sale, saying they do not want to work for Alliant, which builds landmines, cluster bombs and engines for nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.

Officials with Alliant Techsystems and MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates declined to comment, citing pending government approval of the sale. Both firms have previously said the sale will be good for Canada. Alliant officials have also said they will keep jobs in the country and they plan to expand the Canadian company’s space division so it can attract even more work.

But Mr. Morley said the government should put a halt to the deal. “It’s an affront that will be a major blow to our space efforts,” he said.

Industry Minister Jim Prentice will have final say on whether the deal goes through. Bill Rodgers, his director of communications, said Mr. Prentice has until March 22 to make a decision, although a 30-day extension could be requested.

“Under the Investment Canada Act, the big thing is whether this transaction is of net benefit to Canada,” said Mr. Rodgers. “That is the test.

“It won’t be a done deal until the minister is satisfied that the tests under the act are met and, if they’re not, he, as the minister, can make a decision on that basis,” Mr. Rodgers said.

The Canadian Space Agency did not respond to e-mailed questions earlier this week.

Mr. Morley said the technology used by the first satellite, Radarsat-1, and now Radarsat-2, is cutting-edge and the imagery from the spacecraft is in demand by Canadian government departments, scientists and other nations.

Mr. Morley, then director general of the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, pushed the government in the mid-1970s to invest in the unique technology outfitted on the Radarsat spacecraft, and his organization did the original research. He also selected MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, then a small Canadian firm, to work on the sensors and had government research transferred to the firm.

Mr. Morley said that billions of dollars of tax money have been invested in the company over the years, but he didn’t hold out much hope the sale will be halted.

Mr. Garneau said the government has invested heavily in the Canadian firm to build it up into the country’s largest space firm producing world-class technology.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

Don’t resume the transfer of Afghan prisoners

Dear Ceasefire.ca Supporter,

I have just returned to my office from the CTV televisions studios, where I urged the government not to restart the transfer of prisoners to local Afghan prisons.

My appeal was motivated by an extreme sense of urgency. You may have read in the newspapers last week the story of a 50-year-old labourer and his 11-year-old son, living in Kandahar where our troops are based, who were picked up by Afghan police.

The officers, our allies in the fight against the Taliban, took the man and boy to a police checkpoint and gang-raped them both. The father said, “As they did it to me, I could hear the others doing it to my son.”

Please join me in writing to Prime Minister Harper.

We know this story is true because fortunately three of the policemen responsible were charged, found guilty, and sentenced to 10 years in prison by a Kandahar court. But rape is under-reported and rarely makes it to trial.

I am shocked that the military, no doubt with the approval of the Harper government, is starting this terrible practice of handing detainees to local authorities once again. Amnesty International and others are calling on the government to stop these handovers.

The evidence that torture is rampant throughout the judicial system is undeniable. Even Canadian inspectors could not ignore the evidence of torture, and the military quietly stopped handing over prisoners to Afghan authorities last November.

I urge you, if you have not already done so, to join with the 685 other Ceasefire.ca supporters in sending your letter to Prime Minister Harper, urging him to stop the transfer of detainees.

Thanks for taking action.

The National Debate on Afghanistan

Dear Ceasefire.ca supporter

I wanted to let you know that tonight I will be a guest on CBC TV’s The National, speaking on what Canada should be doing in Afghanistan.

On Monday I recorded a 3-minute monologue for the CBC at the National War Museum which will air tonight. In my segment, I advocated strongly for Canada to take a lead role in a comprehensive peace settlement in Afghanistan. This afternoon I am travelling down to Toronto to be on a panel in Peter Mansbridge’s studio to discuss the war. I hope you’ll be able to watch.

As well, I’m sure that you will be just as dismayed as I am to learn that the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, is actually scheduled to make a major speech to a military-advocacy group called the Conference of Defence Associations on Thursday in Ottawa.

The CDA receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the Department of National Defence, and according to Macleans.ca, it is required to ensure that it publishes “a certain number” of articles in newspapers. Not surprisingly, according to its director, retired colonel Alain Pellerin, the CDA rarely disagrees with the Conservative Party’s defence policy.

You can read more on one of the best blogs on Canadian military issues, Ottawa Citizen journalist David Pugliese’s Defence Watch. According to Pugliese, the Prime Minister is set to announce billions of dollars in more military equipment purchases.

Best wishes,

Manley Gives Harper Green Light to Prolong the War

January 24, 2008 Manley Gives Harper Green Light to Prolong the War   Watch Steven Staples on CTV News responding to the Manley report Dear Ceasefire.ca supporter, This week John Manley delivered his report on the future of the war in Afghanistan, and Prime Minister Harper was not disappointed. Rather than trying to find a way to end the war, Manley delivered a prescription to prolong it.  As you may have seen on TV, we were very active, speaking to journalists about the report, calling for an end to the conflict and a peaceful solution to stop the suffering. Below is our analysis on the Manley report, published today by Now Magazine in Toronto. Looking ahead to the resumption of Parliament next week, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that Harper does not win a long-promised vote to extend the mission beyond February 2009.Best,  24 January 2008  The case for more war Panel on Afghanistan gives PM a rationale  for dragging out the conflict Steven Staples Ottawa – John Manley and his panel on the future of Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan have delivered a late Christmas gift to Stephen Harper. Their report hits all the right notes, endorses the government’s conduct of the war and calls on Canada to keep doing the same thing it has been – just more of it.No rebranding of the mission is on offer. Pre-release speculation was that Manley would urge a shift in the mission away from combat to training Afghan troops. Call the war training instead of combat, even though there is little difference, and maybe the Liberals will come on side. At his press conference Tuesday, January 22, Manley sat in front of a photo of Afghan children and declared that the mission should continue indefinitely beyond 2009, until the Afghan army is able to continue the fight on their own, on condition that NATO provide an additional 1,000 troops to Kandahar province to assist Canadians, and the government acquire helicopters and unmanned surveillance aircraft. There was some mild criticism of the government’s current approach, identifying a need to focus more on diplomacy and reconstruction, and calling on the prime minister to play a more active role in pressing for greater support from NATO. But this is really just window dressing around what is a major endorsement of the current military mission.The demand that more troops be deployed by NATO or else Canada will withdraw next year is likely a bluff, since an additional 1,000 troops could easily come from the U.S., which is already sending over 3,000 more Marines to Afghanistan. The report and press conference were largely a rehash of previous government announcements and demands. They had the requisite finger-pointing at NATO for not providing enough troops and at Pakistan for not securing its border where insurgents cross freely into Afghanistan, and the obligatory tribute to the bravery of our soldiers. Was there any real possibility that Manley would come out with any new ideas to end the war, now dragging into its seventh year at a cost of $100 million a month, with Canadian casualties approaching 80? Probably not. The panel itself was unbalanced, consisting of hawks from the Conservative and Liberal parties whose shared area of expertise is not the needs of Afghanistan but the desires of Washington. Even more disappointing, the panel held its interviews with government and military officials and a smattering of development groups behind closed doors. Sure, individual Canadians concerned about the war were welcome to send them an e-mail, but that’s the modern equivalent of slipping a letter under the locked doors – hardly a legitimate public process. The government and opposition parties will respond to the report in coming days, laying the groundwork for the return of Parliament next week. Harper will no doubt use the report to argue that the military mission should be extended to 2011, two years beyond its current commitment to February 2009. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois will no doubt oppose the report’s recommendations. Attention will focus on the Liberals now. After all, Harper has promised to put the extension of the military mission to a vote, and he needs at least some Liberal support. Stéphane Dion has repeatedly said he will not endorse an extension of the Kandahar combat mission beyond 2009. When Harper set up the Manley panel last October, he had several objectives in mind. First was to delay having to make a decision on the Afghanistan conflict, and the panel has bought him time to rebuild support for the unpopular war. Second was to gain approval for the war and its extension, which Manley delivered nicely. But Harper, in appointing a former Liberal MP to head the panel, probably hoped Manley would be able to reposition the mission in a way that might win the government some support from the Liberal benches in a vote on extending it to 2011. And on this point, Manley has probably let Harper down. In reading through the report and listening to the press conference, I didn’t find much the Liberals could vote for. Manley was clear that training did not mean abandoning combat – a central Liberal demand. As well, there was no mention of reducing or moving troops in Kandahar, another key Liberal demand. In this regard, one can commend Manley for not trying to falsely portray training the Afghan national army as something distinct from combat, because it is not. In fact, the way the Canadian Forces train Afghan soldiers is by engaging in combat, fighting side by side. When Parliament returns, the report will ensure that the issue continues to be a key part of parliamentary debate. Even more, the war may play a role in spurring on an election. If Harper moves quickly to a vote on extending the mission without assured Liberal support, Canada’s combat role in Kandahar will be a key election issue. Steven Staples is the director of the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=161468         Please forward this email to your friends. Want to make a donation to ceasefire.ca? Send your gift on-line, or print off this convenient donation form. Because of our advocacy role, donations are not tax deductible.If you are not , please consider becoming a subscriber to our alerts.   Ceasefire.ca is a project of the Rideau Institute.     This message was sent from the Rideau Institute to . You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. Ce message a été envoyé de l’Institut de Rideau to . Vous pouvez modifier/mettre à jour à la liaison ci-dessous.Rideau Institute/ l’Institut Rideau Institute  The Hope Building/Edifice Hope  63, rue Sparks Street, Suite 608   Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5A6  Canada  Tel. 613 565-9449  e. operations@rideauinstitute.ca The Rideau Institute is an independent research, advocacy, and consulting group based in Ottawa. It is a federally registered non-profit organization, established in January 2007. L’Institut Rideau est une recherche indépendante, le plaidoyer et groupe de consultant basé à Ottawa. C’est une organisation, établie en janvier 2007, à but non lucratif enregistrée au féderal.

Where’s Canada’s leadership on banning cluster bombs?

December 6, 2007

Where’s Canada’s leadership on banning cluster bombs?

Ceasefire.ca founder, Steve Staples, with Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Jody Williams.  Join them in calling for Canadian leadership to create a ban on cluster bombs.

Dear Ceasefire.ca Supporter,

Ten years ago, Canada was instrumental in creating the Ottawa Treaty, which produced a ban on anti-personnel mines. Today, we need to pressure Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government to position Canada as a leader in the movement to ban cluster bombs.

Jody Williams, Chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative and recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work in bringing about the landmine ban, was in Ottawa this past week, and was very vocal about her disappointment in Canada’s inaction on cluster bombs. In a press conference that the Nobel Women’s Initiative held last week on Parliament Hill, Ms. Williams stressed the importance of Canadian leadership in resolving the issue of cluster bombs and other global affairs. We recorded and uploaded video of this press conference; you can view Part 1 and Part 2.

If you haven’t done so already, please join me and other Ceasefire.ca activists in sending a letter to Stephen Harper, urging him to add Canada’s name to the list of countries that are leading efforts to ban cluster bombs.

Best wishes,

Send Your Questions to Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Jody Williams

November 29, 2007 Dear friend, Send your questions to Nobel Peace Prize recipient Jody Williams, and logon to the Globe and Mail on Friday November 30th, at noon EDT, to participate in a live chat with her. Nobel Peace Prize recipient and Chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative Jody Williams is in Canada this week on a high-level visit to Ottawa, which will also include the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the treaty to ban land mines.   While in Ottawa, Ms. Williams will be participating LIVE in an online Globe and Mail discussion on Friday November 30, 2007, from 12:00 to 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time.   I encourage you to submit your questions to Ms. Williams as soon as possible through the Globe and Mail web site, and then check back on Friday as the whole thing unfolds live.   I have also included an article from today’s Globe and Mail on Ms. Williams, which they published to coincide with her visit to Ottawa. To learn more about Ms. Williams or her trip to Ottawa, please visit the Nobel Women’s Initiative website.Best, Steven Staples Rideau Institute and founder of Ceasefire.ca   ‘Where’s Canada’s leadership in global issues?’ Honoured for spearheading weapons ban, Nobel laureate Jody Williams chastises Ottawa for ‘taking a back seat’ in world affairs GLORIA GALLOWAY  From Thursday’s Globe and Mail   November 29, 2007 at 1:32 AM EST OTTAWA Nobel laureate Jody Williams will be in Canada this week to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the treaty to ban land mines but she is far from impressed with this country’s recent efforts to promote world peace. “My personal message would be ‘Where’s Canada’s leadership in global issues right now?’” Ms. Williams said in a telephone interview Wednesday from her home in Virginia. “Challenging the world over 10 years ago to negotiate a mine-ban treaty within the year was serious leadership on the part of the Canadian government. And it was very risky. And they carried it off.” But that kind of leadership does not seem to exist today, she said. For example, there is a new initiative that should bring about a convention on cluster munitions by the end of May, 2008, and Canada is noticeably not leading in this initiative. Canada did sign on last February to an international process to protect civilians from the impact of the massive packs of bomblets that have been used to deadly effect in Iraq, Kosovo and Lebanon but it was not among the first group of 30 countries to join the fight. “You are really taking a back seat and it’s really kind of hard to understand,” Ms. Williams said. With land mines, Canada led the way. As did Ms. Williams. She and her organization, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for the work they did to end the use of the weapons. During her visit to Canada she will meet with parliamentarians about the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan and she will give a public address Friday entitled Canada and the World. Ms. Williams had arranged a meeting a month ago with Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier but Mr. Bernier’s officer called last week to cancel. A spokesman for the minister said Wednesday that there were “scheduling conflicts” and that a meeting had instead been arranged with parliamentary secretary Deepak Obhrai. The spokesman would not elaborate on the nature of the scheduling conflicts. But Ms. Williams is still looking forward to the trip and the opportunity to mark the anniversary of the so-called Ottawa process to end land mines that took place Dec. 3 and 4, 1997. Her speech is likely to touch on what she considers to be a unreasonably close relationship between the Conservative government of Stephen Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush. For instance, Ms. Williams is perplexed by Canada’s decision to prevent peace activists Ann Wright and Medea Benjamin from entering the country earlier this year. “Their biggest offence is that they have publicly stated their opposition to Mr. Bush’s war,” she said. In previous years, she said, Canada took its own stands one of which resulted in the land-mines ban. “What was demonstrated with the Ottawa process which brought about the mine-ban treaty,” Ms. Williams said, “is that when countries that have a different view about our security threats in the world come together and work with civil society, they don’t need the so-called important powers to do good in the world.”   Want to make a donation? Send your gift on-line, or print off this convenient donation form. Ceasefire.ca was formerly a project of the Polaris Institute. Read more.Rideau Institute  operations@rideauinstitute.ca  30 Metcalfe Street, Suite 500 Ottawa ON K1P 5L4 Canada  Tel. 613 565-4994 Fax 613 237-3359  www.rideauinstitute.caIf you received this newsletter through a friend, please consider becoming a subscriber.  The Rideau Institute is a public interest research organization federally incorporated as a not-for-profit organization with Industry Canada under the Canada Corporations Act. Unfortunately, donations to the Rideau Institute are not tax deductible.

Update: Canada edges toward deadly nuclear embrace

 

November 22, 2007 Dear friend, Canada’s voting record at the UN on crucial anti-nuclear weapons resolutions indicates an alarming shift away from Canada’s traditional role as a supporter of disarmament. Yesterday, the Toronto Star published the article below written by Anthony Salloum, program director of the Rideau Institute (Ceasefire.ca’s parent). Anthony outlines what happened at the UN and why we should be concerned about the direction the government is heading. If you have not done so already, please send your letter to Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, urging the government to support nuclear disarmament.     Best wishes,     Canada edges toward deadly nuclear embrace     Toronto Star, Nov 21st, page AA8 Anthony Salloum The growing uncertainty over the status of Pakistan‘s nuclear arsenal is another reminder that these weapons continue to threaten the world, and suggests why Canada should be pushing for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, worldwide. There has never been a more important time for Canada‘s voice to be heard in support of nuclear disarmament, but if recent votes at the United Nations last month are any indication, Canada is slowly shifting toward embracing nuclear weapons. Traditionally, Canada has been a champion of nuclear disarmament. But last month, our position was put to the test on a key UN vote to diminish the risk of nuclear war, and Canada sat silent. Our ambassador, on instructions from Ottawa, abstained on an important UN resolution “calling on Nuclear Weapons States to lower the operating status of nuclear weapons.” This was the first time such a motion had made it to a vote. The intent of the motion, championed by retired Canadian senator Douglas Roche and his organization, the Middle Powers Initiative, was to lengthen the time required for a nuclear launch, reducing the risk of an accidental or premature launch. But the Harper government doesn’t see it that way. In explaining Canada‘s silent abstention, our ambassador said that while “reducing operational readiness remained important … at the same time, deterrence remained an important element of international security and a fundamental part of the deterrence policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).” In other words, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has decided that NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy reigns supreme. At the urging of anti-nuclear organizations such as the Canadian Pugwash Group, last spring then-foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay reported to Parliament that he had raised concerns about NATO’s reliance upon nuclear weapons at a meeting of the alliance. Then the government shifted tactics, and a few weeks later then-defence minister Gordon O’Connor told Parliament: “We are a member of NATO and we stand by NATO’s policies. NATO, at this stage, has no policy of disarming from nuclear weapons.” Not surprisingly, the old policy supporting “the complete elimination of nuclear weapons” was changed on the foreign affairs department website to say that Canada‘s policy is “consistent with our membership in NATO.” But the reason for this shift may have less to do with NATO itself than with acquiescence to the United States‘ interests in keeping the door open to a renewal of nuclear weapons testing. Equally worrisome this year was Canada‘s reticence to put its name behind a motion to prevent nuclear weapons testing. Last year, Canada co-sponsored a resolution calling for a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). In October, Canada failed to co-sponsor the resolution that stressed “the vital importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and without conditions, to achieve the earliest entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.” Thankfully, the resolution passed, 166 in favour to only one opposed (United States) with four abstentions (Colombia, India, Mauritius, Syria). Ultimately, Canada voted in favour, but could Canada‘s decision not to co-sponsor the resolution, as it had done in the past, be related to the U.S. plan to develop new nuclear weapons? This is a troublesome shift in Canada‘s policy on nuclear disarmament. One can trace its beginnings to 2005 when the Liberals, trying to curry favour in Washington, started getting cold feet on nuclear disarmament. In her book Holding the Bully’s Coat, Linda McQuaig notes positively that, by 2005, Canadian leadership over several years had led to 13 other countries breaking ranks with their NATO allies and voting with Canada in support of a resolution aimed at ending the deadlock that is paralyzing the UN’s Conference on Disarmament. Consistent with its leadership, Canada announced its intention to support another important nuclear disarmament resolution at the UN First Committee, the body responsible for disarmament. Canada‘s support of the creative and inspired initiative was intended to try to break the impasse on disarmament talks by proposing new, ad hoc committees that would bypass the deadlock. But with hours to go, Canada pulled the plug on supporting the UN resolution, and as a result other countries followed suit. The reason: Paul Martin’s government succumbed to intense pressure from the White House. McQuaig notes, “tragically, the moment had been lost.” While Martin’s failing may have been an aberration, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives may be making a more permanent policy shift. Parliamentarians and Canadians need to raise the alarm about this shift. It is inconceivable that, at a time of renewed threats from nuclear weapons, Canada would be shifting away from an active role in advancing nuclear disarmament. It is up to those who feel strongly that such a move is disastrous for global security to hold all parliamentarians accountable for allowing this to take place. It’s not too late to stop this shift in its tracks. Anthony Salloum is program director at the Rideau Institute, a public policy and advocacy group based in Ottawa.