the ploughshares monitor - home page - project...

Ploughshares MonitorThe

SUMMER 2017 | VOLUME 38 | ISSUE 2

Project Ploughshares is an operating division of The Canadian Council of Churches

Peacebuilders A look at Canadians devoted to peace

Q&A on South SudanGeoffrey Duke discusses its troubled path to statehood

Behind the scenesPloughshares at work on the Space Security Index

ATT legistationExamining Canada’s tank-sized loophole

MADE IN CANADA

Canadian weapons, Saudi Arabia, human-rights violations, and forced displacement

The Ploughshares MonitorVolume 38 | Issue 2

The Ploughshares Monitor is the quarterlyjournal of Project Ploughshares, an operating division of The Canadian Council of Churches. Ploughshares works with churches, nongovernmental organizations, and governments, in Canada and abroad, to advance policies and actions that prevent war and armed violence and build peace. Project Ploughshares is affiliated with the KCU Centre for Peace Advancement, Conrad Grebel University College, University of Waterloo.

Office address: Project Ploughshares140 Westmount Road NorthWaterloo, Ontario N2L 3G6 Canada519-888-6541, fax: [email protected]; www.ploughshares.ca

Project Ploughshares gratefully acknowledges the ongoing financial support of the many individuals, national churches and church agencies, local congregations, religious orders, and organizations across Canada that ensure that the work of Project Ploughshares continues.

We are particularly grateful to The Simons Foundation in Vancouver for its generous support.

All donors of $50 or more receive a complimentary subscription to The Ploughshares Monitor. Annual subscription rates for libraries and institutions are: $35 in Canada, $45 (U.S.) in the United States, $50 (U.S.) internationally. Single copies are $5 plus shipping.

Unless indicated otherwise, material may be reproduced freely, provided the author and source are indicated and one copy is sent to Project Ploughshares. Return postage is guaranteed.

Publications Mail Registration No. 40065122.ISSN 1499-321X.

The Ploughshares Monitor is indexed in the Canadian Periodical Index.

Printed at Waterloo Printing, Waterloo, Ontario.Printed with vegetable inks on paper with recycled content.

ContentsSummer 2017 PROJECT PLOUGHSHARES STAFF

Debbie HughesTasneem JamalBranka Marijan Sonal Marwah

Matthew PupicWendy StockerBarbara WagnerJessica West

Cesar Jaramillo Executive Director

3

5

17

20

From the Director’s deskCanada’s ATT legislation.by Cesar Jaramillo

The Space Security IndexBehind the scenes with Project Ploughshares.by Jessica West

The determined optimistA tribute to the Hon. Douglas Roche.

Arms and forced displacementThe case of the Canada-Saudi Arabia arms deal.by Sonal Marwah

23 In Memoriam: Ann Strauss Gertler

Q&A on South SudanA conversation with Geoffrey Duke.by Cesar Jaramillo

“and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more.” Isaiah 2:4

The Ploughshares Monitor, the quarterly publication of Project Ploughshares, is available online at www.ploughshares.ca.

12

Funded by the Government of Canada

22 Re: Canadian leadership on disarmamentA letter from Canadians for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

COVER: In 2014, Canada agreed to sell an undisclosed number of General Dynamics Land Systems’ light-armoured combat vehicles (LAVs), one of which is pictured on the cover, to the Saudi Arabian National Guard, the force that deals with internal threats to the ruling regime.

The Ploughshares Monitor | Summer 2017 3

For years Project Ploughshares has had deep concerns about the arrangement under which

Canada exports military goods to the United States. This arrangement, which has long exempted the United States from licensing and reporting requirements applicable to every other destination, undermines oft-repeated claims from successive gov-ernments about the strength of Can-ada’s military export controls regime.

As stated in the annual Report on Exports of Military Goods from Can-ada, “due to close and long-standing military cooperation with the United States, including the integrated na-ture of North America’s defence industry, permit exemptions apply to most Group 2 exports destined for final use in that country. Statistics related to exports of military goods and technology to the United States therefore are not reported here.”

To be sure, Canada does not enjoy the same latitude it affords its south-ern neighbour. Military exports from the United States to Canada are—and will likely continue to be—subject to the more stringent regula-tions of U.S. export controls.

The hope of the ATT In June 2016, after a highly conspicu-

ous delay, Canada announced that it would accede to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). We dared to hope that the process of legislative and regula-tory changes required for Canada to become a state party to the Treaty would quell our concerns about U.S.-bound exports. It has now become clear that we were wrong.

Canada’s intent to join the ATT has made questions about the com-patibility of exemptions with the expectations and promises of greater rigour and transparency around military exports more pressing. But those looking for answers in the draft ATT legislation recently tabled in the Canadian parliament will surely be dismayed.

Bill C-47, tabled by Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland on April 13, contains no provisions to end the special exemptions afforded to the United States. Not only will the preservation of such a loophole be considered highly problematic by civil society, but other ATT states parties may also question such special treatment.

The ATT calls for the “highest possible common international stan-dards.” Yet the arrangement with the United States neither constitutes the highest possible standard nor is it

common to the standards applied to others.

Besides the obvious economic benefits to Canada’s arms manufac-turing industry, Ottawa’s position seems to be founded on blind trust in the United States. Not only is the assumption of trustworthiness debat-able, it is not even relevant. The ATT is most definitely not a trust-based regime—it is a binding legal instru-ment with unambiguous obligations, including an obligation to issue re-ports on ALL military exports.

A customer like no otherIt is hard to see how Canadian exemptions could be compatible with ATT obligations, regardless of the recipient. In the case of the United States, they are especially suspect. Here’s why:

• The United States is, by far, the largest recipient of Can-adian military goods, year after year. Of course, we have no exact figures because of the reporting exemption, but analysts estimate that Canada exports military goods worth as much as $2-billion to the United States annually—more than half of total military

From the Director’s desk:

By Cesar Jaramillo

Canada’s ATT legislation:A loophole you could drive a tank through

The Ploughshares Monitor | Summer 20174

exports. So even after Canada joins the Arms Trade Treaty, the majority of all Canadian military exports will not be reported and will thus be shielded from public opinion and scrutiny.

• Canada considers the United States the end-user of Can-adian-made military goods and components—and it is, for the most part. But the United States is also the lar-gest exporter of weapons and military equipment in the world. Some Canadian components are incorporated into systems in the United States and then exported to third parties. This does not require further authorization from Canada, even though recipients could be countries to which Canada would not export military goods. For ex-ample, Canada might impose sanctions targeting a specific state through the Special Eco-nomic Measures Act, which does not fully align with the U.S. sanctions regime. The inverse situation—Canada’s exporting U.S. military goods to a third party without prior authorization—would not be allowed by the United States.

• The United States is not an ATT state party, and is not expected to become one in the foreseeable future. While the Obama administration did sign the ATT, the United States has not ratified it and is not bound by its obligations. Canada, on the other hand, will be a state party and the expectation is that all its arms export regulations will be en-

tirely consistent with the pro-visions of the treaty, including those related to licensing and reporting obligations. More-over, a widely shared goal is the universal adoption of the ATT, but it is hard to see how Canada will contribute to that objective when it offers laxer conditions to a non-state party than it does to those states that have agreed to be bound by the obligations of the treaty.

Falling on deaf earsFollowing the announcement that Canada would accede to the Arms Trade Treaty, Project Ploughshares, Amnesty International Canada, Ox-fam Canada, and Oxfam Quebec jointly produced a detailed briefing that outlined key elements of Can-ada’s military export controls regime that require attention. This briefing was the basis for discussions with Global Affairs Canada that attempted to support Canada’s effective imple-mentation of its Treaty obligations. Specific recommendations included:

• R4.1 Canada must amend its na-tional control system to control the transfer of ammunition and parts and components to the United States, which are current-ly exempt from regulation.

• R5.1 Canada’s export regulations must be adjusted so that export permit authorization applies to all Group 2 equipment shipped to U.S. destinations, as it does for all other states. Subcontracted shipments to the United States—largely components and sub-systems—must also be regulated.

Rather than heed these recom-mendations, Global Affairs Canada

left in place precisely the type of scenario that not only runs contrary to the spirit and objective of the Treaty, but also could set a troubling international precedent. If more and more countries set up bilateral spe-cial arrangements instead of com-mon standards, the ATT regime will be gradually but effectively weak-ened.

Bill C-47 does put Canada one step closer to becoming a state party—a goal that Project Plough-shares, among many stakeholders at home and abroad, has worked for. It covers important issues that were known to require attention, such as establishing controls over brokering in military goods between two coun-tries outside of Canada. In this in-stance, it will raise the regulatory bar.

Further, Bill C-47 creates a legal obligation for the Minister of For-eign Affairs to consider certain as-sessment criteria before authorizing permits. However, while moving from the current guidelines to legal obligations is positive in principle, the value lies in the details of pending regulations. Will these regulations indicate clearly that export authoriza-tions must be denied if certain fac-tors are unfavorably assessed? Or will new regulations still allow the Minis-ter to authorize permits as long as all factors are merely “considered”?

Illicit and irresponsible transfers of conventional weapons are a sig-nificant factor in human suffering worldwide, fueling armed violence in all its forms. The ATT aims to establish global standards for respon-sible national decision-making on the transfer of conventional weapons.

If Canada becomes a state party to the ATT while preserving exemp-tions to the largest recipient of Can-adian-made military goods, some may applaud the accession—but there will be no standing ovation. □

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK


The world is experiencing the highest level of forced dis-placement since World War II. According to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR

2016a), approximately 34,000 people are forcibly displaced daily by conflict and persecution. A trigger and driver of forced displacement is armed conflict, which is fueled, prolonged, and made deadlier by available, accessible weapons. And so weapons control, and particularly control of the international arms trade, becomes a key to the resolution and restriction of conflict and, thus, of displacement. Civil society and international humanitarian actors have been working tirelessly to en-courage governments to adopt stricter and more robust arms export controls.

In 2014, Saudi Arabia and Canada signed an arms deal valued at $14.8-bil-lion. This contract to provide the Saudis with weaponized armoured vehicles is still going ahead, even though there is ample damning evidence that Saudi Arabia vio-lates the human rights of its own citizens and has committed serious violations of the laws of war in its involvement in the conflict in Yemen, which has caused wide-spread death and displacement.

Here we examine this arms deal through the lens of conflict-induced dis-placement.

When people are forced to fleeArmed conflict disproportionately affects

civilians and their communities, disrupting and destroying livelihoods; denying access to clean drinking water, food supplies, and medicine; damaging vital infrastructure that provides energy and other basic servi-ces; preventing the education of children; denying everyone a sense of safety. Some civilians are forced to flee their homes and become refugees, but typically, many are either internally displaced or become trapped in zones of conflict, caught in the crossfire (OHCHR 1996-2017). Accord-ing to the UNHCR (2016a), in 2015 there were an estimated 21.3-million refugees and 40.8-million internally displaced per-sons (IDPs).

Some of the worst human-rights vio-lations in conflict zones affect refugees, IDPs, and civilians who are unable to move to safety. Displaced persons are always under threat. Immediately before and during the displacement event, armed violence escalates and civilians are threat-ened. Away from home, civilians can be directly and indirectly affected by violence, facing harassment or forced recruitment. And when they are either resettled or re-turn home, they are easy targets for armed criminals.1 The fundamental rights and basic entitlements of forcibly displaced persons are threatened at each stage by, among other things, the availability of arms.

Interstate and intrastate conflicts most often occur in developing regions, but most of the arms in those conflicts are

Arms and forced displacementThe case of the Canada-Saudi Arabia

arms deal

By Sonal Marwah


from developed countries. The United States is the world’s largest arms exporter and the largest exporter to developing states. Between 2008 and 2015, developing countries were the top arms purchasers globally, with Saudi Arabia and India tak-ing the lead (Theohary 2016, Summary). In 2015, Canada was the second biggest arms exporter to the Middle East, after the United States (Chase 2016c).

As arms sales to the Middle East have grown, so have volatile conflicts in the re-gion, creating widespread regional instabil-ity. Conflicts in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen are triggering massive levels of displacement. By the end of 2015, the Middle East was hosting roughly 23-million displaced migrants (Connor 2016). Displacement surged in 2011 with the conflict in Syria; since then, the Middle East has become the region with the fastest growing popu-lation of forcibly displaced persons and

international migrants. In 2014, Canada agreed to sell an un-

disclosed number of General Dynamics Land Systems’ light-armoured combat vehicles (LAVs) to the Saudi Arabian Na-tional Guard (SANG), the force that deals with internal threats to the ruling regime.

While the deal is the largest advanced military arms export contract in Canadian history (Balca 2016), Canada has a long history of exporting military equipment to Saudi Arabia and has continuously ex-ported LAVs to Saudi Arabia since 1992. In 2012, Canada exported goods worth more than $400-million to the Kingdom. In 2014, Saudi Arabia was the top custom-er for Canadian military exports (28.2 per cent of total); in 2015, Saudi Arabia was the second-largest military export destina-tion (14.1 per cent) (GAC 2016c). (These figures exclude data related to exports to the United States, which are exempt from

FORCED MIGRATION

Figure 1: Canadian military exports to Saudi Arabia, 1992-2013*

*in constant 2013 dollars (GAC 2016b/c, 2013. See also Annual Reports to Parliament for other years.)

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012


reporting requirements, but have historic-ally amounted to over half of all Canadian military exports in any given year.)

LAVs are versatile, useful in rural and urban areas, and amphibious. They are deemed effective for crowd control. How they are used depends on how they are equipped. Global Affairs Canada (GAC), which issues import and export licences, has provided no information about the lethality of the vehicles going to Saudi Arabia, but it is known that the export permit applications encompass not only the LAVs, but also their associated weapons systems (GAC 2016d, p. 3).

Whatever the gun configuration, the LAVs themselves fall under Group 2 of the Export Control List, which includes military goods and technology that Can-ada considers to be “specially designed or modified for military use.” Other items in this group include weapons or armament with a calibre greater than 12.7 mm, tor-

pedoes, rockets, vessels of war, and chem-ical or biological toxic agents (GAC 2016a, Group 2).

Under the policy guidelines of the Export and Import Permits Act (EIPA), Canada requires clear demonstration that “there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian popula-tion” (GAC 2016b, p. 3). Several observ-ers, including Project Ploughshares, have raised questions about the extent to which this requirement can be met in the context of the LAV deal.

The current Liberal government has approved 70 per cent of the export per-mits (Chase 2016a)—the final green light before shipments can commence. But a portion of the export licences still await authorization.

Human costs of weapons salesIn the past, Saudis bought LAVs to defend against possible attacks by either the Is-

FORCED MIGRATION

above: In Yemen, internally displaced children stand outside their family tent after the family fled their home in Saada province and found refuge in Darwin camp, in the northern province of Amran. Yahya Arhab/UNHCR


lamic State or Riyadh’s Shia Muslim rival, Iran. But, given Saudi Arabia’s abysmal human rights record, critics have warned that the LAVs could be used against Saudi citizens. At the beginning of last year, for example, 47 people convicted of terrorism-related offences, including Shia Muslim cleric Sheik Nimr al-Nimr, were executed. Even the Government of Canada’s 2015 redacted review of human rights in Saudi Arabia acknowledges the strong hold of the monarchy; deteriora-tion in regional security, including domes-tic threats; and specific human-rights chal-lenges (Mas 2016).

In addition, there is evidence that the monarchy has made specific use of LAVs to suppress political opposition. Accord-ing to Ali Adubisi of the Berlin-based European-Saudi Organization for Hu-man Rights, Saudi authorities deployed armoured vehicles against Shia civilians in Eastern Province more than 15 times between 2011 and mid-2016 (Chase 2016b). While the country of origin of these vehicles is not clear, these incidents

demonstrate the monarchy’s willingness “to use such military assets against its own people” (Chase 2016b).

However, there is evidence that, in 2011, the Saudis did send Canadian-made LAVs into Bahrain to help quell democrat-ic protests (Ceasefire.ca 2011). The Can-adian government has not denied the in-cident, but suggested that the LAVs were “to protect key building and infrastructure, and did not engage in suppression of peaceful protests” (GAC 2016d).

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has led a coalition of Arab states (Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, and Senegal) in armed conflict against the Iran-backed Houthi rebels of Yemen, in an attempt to restore the ousted Yemeni government. The Houthis are a Zaidi Shia group from northern Yemen, also known as Ansar Allah, which took control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa. By the end of 2015, more than 2.5-million Yemeni civilians had been displaced (IDMC 2017) and 120,000 had sought asylum in other countries, in-

FORCED MIGRATION

Ploughshares coverage of the arms deal with Saudi ArabiaProject Ploughshares has offered detailed analysis of the 2014 arms contract with Saudi Arabia. See, for example:

2017Jaramillo, Cesar. Despite ruling, many questions on Saudi arms deal linger. The Globe and Mail, January 28.

2016Jaramillo, Cesar. Ottawa cannot deny dangers of Saudi arms deal. Waterloo Region Record, July 16, A11.-----. Time to cancel the Saudi arms deal. Waterloo Region Record, April 20, A11.-----. The big, fat Saudi-arms-deal spin. Huffington Post, April 18.-----. Canada’s reputation takes a big hit. Waterloo Region Record, April 16, A11.-----. We can kiss Canada’s human rights credibility goodbye. The Globe and Mail, April 14.-----. Saudi arms deal isn’t a fait accompli. Waterloo Region Record, April 8, A9.-----. Trudeau could honour the Saudi arms deal—and not ship a single weapon. Huffington Post, March 22.-----. Why Ottawa’s justification of the Saudi deal is not enough. OpenCanada.org, February 17.-----. Trudeau’s handling of the Saudi arms deal will define his legacy. Huffington Post, February 2.-----. Canadians: Keep asking questions about our Saudi arms deal. The Globe and Mail, January 18.-----. Saudi deal will shape Canada’s character. Waterloo Region Record, January 13.

For more, go to the Ploughshares website, www.ploughshares.ca, and search, using the tag “Saudi Arabia.”


FORCED MIGRATION

cluding Djibouti and Somalia (UNHCR 2016b). Since the conflict began, more than 10,000 have died.

The scale of the destruction has trig-gered a humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen, the poorest of the Gulf countries. Both sides in the conflict have been ac-cused of intentionally targeting civilians, in violation of international humanitar-ian law (IHL). The Houthi combatants are positioned in residential areas, and coalition airstrikes on rebel strongholds have caused extensive damage to civilian property. A UN Panel of Experts2 found that the Saudi-led bombing campaign had involved “widespread and systematic” at-tacks on civilian targets, including refugee and IDP camps, civilian gatherings, med-ical facilities, education centres, and food storage warehouses (MacAskill 2016). The coalition has targeted the cities of Sa’dah and Maran in their entirety, in violation of the principles of distinction, propor-tionality, and precaution in war (MacAskill 2016).

Where can political dissidents of the Saudi monarchy flee? What refuge is there for displaced Yemenis? The Middle East is already hosting a huge number of refugees and IDPs. And if refuge exists, how are those fleeing conflict to get there safely? In March, a boat off the coast of Yemen, carrying 145 refugees, was fired upon by an Apache helicopter. At least 32 were killed. Most of the boat’s occupants were Somalis who had first fled to Yemen and

then were forced to flee the raging con-flict in Yemen and were headed to Sudan. While no one claimed responsibility for the attack, only the Saudi-led coalition is believed to have U.S.-manufactured mil-itary aircraft (HRW 2017).

Tackling conflict-induced displacement The leader of the United Kingdom’s Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, has called for an immediate inquiry into violation of the laws of war by the coalition and a suspension of UK arms transfers to Saudi Arabia, pending its outcome. The govern-ments of the United Kingdom and the United States have been repeatedly warned by humanitarian organizations to halt arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia and other coali-tion members. The European Parliament has voted for an embargo on arms sales to the Saudi kingdom, citing the “disastrous humanitarian situation” resulting from the military intervention in Yemen (Rankin 2016). Organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, are also condemning Iran, amid reports that Iran is stepping up its arms supplies to the Houthi rebels (Saul, Hafezi & Geor-gy 2017).

What can Canada do?Accede to the Arms Trade Treaty

Canada is currently the only member of the G7 group of industrialized nations and of the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization that has neither

Sonal Marwah is a Program Officer with Project Ploughshares.

[email protected]

Guidelines for Canada’s export-control regulations (GAC 2013)Under current export control policy guidelines mandated by Cabinet, Canada closely controls the export of military goods and technology to countries:

• that pose a threat to Canada and its allies;that are involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities;• that are under United Nations Security Council sanctions;• whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens, unless it can be

demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population.


FORCED MIGRATION

signed nor ratified the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a multilateral treaty that regulates the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft, and warships—includ-ing the type of LAVs at the centre of the Saudi arms deal. The ATT seeks to direct-ly and indirectly reduce human suffering by targeting the unregulated and irrespon-sible trade in conventional weapons that fuels armed conflict, enables human-rights violations, and sustains autocratic regimes. The ATT entered into force in Decem-ber 2014 and the treaty forms part of the body of international law.

On April 13, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs tabled legislation that will enable Canada to become a State Party to the ATT.

Canada’s decision to accede to the ATT is a step in the right direction and is to be commended. But it’s not enough. And it’s not enough for Canada to claim, as it does, that it has some of the strictest arms con-trol regulations on the books. Needed are more robust and transparent regulations that will entail close adherence to ATT criteria and meet its legal requirements.

Canada must start requiring export per-mit authorizations for all arms exports to the United States, as it does for all other states. Under current bilateral arrange-ments, not only is the United States ex-empt from export licensing requirements, but there is no reporting provided on Canadian military exports to that coun-try—even though it is the largest recipient of Canadian military goods. There is no indication that this will change follow-ing accession to the ATT. However, the ATT does not provide for such regulatory exemptions. Moreover, accurate estima-tions of the value of Canadian military exports would require the same type of re-porting on military exports to the United States as for other countries.

Stricter adherence to the ECL’s guide-lines for granting licences to arms deals is needed. As well, there should be greater transparency around how government de-

cisions to grant export licences are made. And Canada must develop an effective means to monitor Saudi use of Canadian-manufactured LAVs, inside and outside its borders.

In practical terms, joining the ATT should make it a lot more difficult for Canada to make arms deals with countries with poor human rights records and auto-cratic regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Algeria. In 2015, these two countries were on the list of the top seven destinations for Canadian military goods (GAC 2016c, p. 12).

Canada is sending mixed messages by acceding to the ATT while proceeding with the Saudi arms deal. The Memoran-dum for Action, labelled “secret,” which presented the analysis consulted by the Foreign Affairs Minister before author-izing the export licence, clearly highlights concern for human rights in Saudi Arabia and the airstrikes by the Saudi-led coali-tion in Yemen (GAC 2016d). This report was released by the Justice Department only after a lawsuit filed in federal court challenged the arms sale. It is worth not-ing that the release of the memorandum is the first-ever release of such a document by GAC. In the future, there needs to be greater transparency and access to such information.

It is also important to note that the contract was concluded at a time when there were growing calls for arms-export-ing countries to end arms sales to Saudi Arabia and to have the Saudi government account for events in Yemen and for serious human-rights violations at home. Canada’s proceeding with the arms deal raises unsettling questions about its com-mitment to human rights and its regula-tory regime for arms exports.

Canada needs to uphold the spirit of the ATT to build a more transparent global arms trade and build a norm that strengthens responsible arms transfers. The flow of new weapons to states in-volved in the conflict will only worsen the humanitarian situation (ACA 2017).


FORCED MIGRATION

Notes

1. This paragraph draws from the work of Dr. Robert Muggah, who is an expert on arms control and armed violence prevention.

2. It must be noted that the Panel members were not able to visit Yemen and did face challenges in compiling accurate and complete information

for the report.

References

Arms Control Association. 2017. Arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain should be rejected. Issue Brief 9:3, May.

Ceasefire.ca. 2011. Canadian-made armoured vehicles enter Bahrain, March 15.

Chase, Steven. 2016a. Dion takes responsibility for pushing through Saudi arms deal. The Globe and Mail, April 18.

-----. 2016b. Saudis use armoured vehicles to suppress internal dissent, videos show. The Globe and Mail, May 11.

-----. 2016c. Canada now the second biggest arms exporter to Middle East, data show. The Globe and Mail, June 14.

Connor, Phillip. 2016. Middle East’s migrant population more than doubles since 2005. Pew Research Center, October 18.

Epps, Kenneth. 2014. Arms export win is human rights loss, The Ploughshares Monitor, Spring.

Global Affairs Canada. 2016a. A Guide to Canada’s Export Controls.

-----. 2016b. Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada 2014.

-----. 2016c. Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada 2015.

-----. 2016d. Memorandum for action: Export of light armoured vehicles and weapon systems to Saudi Arabia, March 21.

-----. 2013. Report on Exports of Military Goods from Canada 2007-2009.

Helmore, Edward. 2016. US increased weapons sales in 2015 despite slight drop in global arms trade. The Guardian, December 26.

Human Rights Watch. 2017. Yemen: Attack on refugee boat likely war crime. March 26.

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. 2017. Yemen IDP Figures Analysis.

MacAskill, Ewen. 2016. UN report into Saudi-led strikes in Yemen raises questions over UK role. The Guardian, January 27.

Mas, Susana. 2016. Ottawa releases redacted report on human rights in Saudi Arabia. CBC News, April 15.

Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (UN). 1996-2017. Questions and answers about IDPs.

Rankin, Jennifer. 2016. EU parliament votes for embargo on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The Guardian, February 25.

Saul, Jonathan, Parisa Hafezi, and Michael Georgy. 2017. Exclusive: Iran steps up support for Houthis in Yemen’s war – sources. Reuters, March

22.

Small Arms Survey. 2014. Producers of Small Arms, Light Weapons, and Their Ammunition. No. 43, July.

Theohary, Catherine A. 2016. Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2008-2015. Congressional Research Service, December 19.

UNHCR. 2016a. Figures at a glance.

-----. 2016b. UNHCR Yemen Factsheet – February 2016.

Support the Sustainable Development GoalsIn the post-2015 development agenda,

there are 17 Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs) with 169 Targets. SDG 16 links development to peace and security and Target 16.4 focuses on the effects of illicit arms flows to sustainable peace, security, and development. The govern-ment of Canada has expressed its commit-ment to support the SDGs. To implement Goal 16, Canada must halt arms sales and transfers to human-rights violators, even if such action impinges upon profitable deals

for arms manufacturers at home. “By creating job dependency and profit

on supplying weapons to an intolerant regime, the government is linking basic employment needs in Canada to the sup-pression of basic rights elsewhere” (Epps 2014).

Support for ending impunity Canada should support the call for an

independent and credible investigation of claims of war crimes in Yemen by all par-ties to the conflict. □


In 2011, the Republic of South Sudan became the newest country in the world when the southern Sudanese voted in a referendum to split from the largely Arab

north. For many years before that, Project Ploughshares was involved in efforts to end a long civil war in Sudan and to foster peacebuilding, including direct field work in and around Juba, now the capital of South Sudan, and liaising with the Sudan-ese diaspora in Canada.

But peace was short-lived in South Sudan and recent press coverage indi-cates that civil war now threatens immin-ent catastrophe. Details can be found in the Armed Conflicts Report on the Project Ploughshares website.

Ploughshares executive director Cesar Jaramillo recently connected with Geof-frey Duke, Head of Secretariat at South Sudan Action Network on Small Arms (SSANSA) to learn more about the most pressing challenges for South Sudan.

Cesar Jaramillo: Do you think the con-flict has reached a critical stage?

Geoffrey Duke: The situation in South Sudan has been in a state of steady decline since the outbreak of the war in 2013. This decline is manifest in all main sectors; security, the economy, and access to basic services. With the trend of events of the recent past, and no decisive action to re-verse the trends, the situation will certainly continue to deteriorate.

There are three main reasons why. First is the breakdown of the Peace Deal signed in August 2015 and the absence of a polit-ical process to shift the political crisis from military to the sphere of genuine dialogue and non-violent politics.

Second is the emergence of new armed groups, from a single armed opposition group in 2013 to over five different rebel movements now, with the latest an-nounced barely two months ago. This proliferation of armed group points to a surge in the scale of hostilities, which in

Q&A: In conversation with Geoffrey Duke

Interview conducted and edited by Cesar Jaramillo

South Sudan’s troubled path to statehood


SOUTH SUDAN

turn fuels the alarming displacement of citizens.

The third reason is the continued flow of arms from around the world into South Sudan. The arms are the fuel to the fire that has already devastated South Sudan and risks pulling the country further down toward total anarchy.

CJ: Famine has been declared in parts of South Sudan, affecting millions, with as many as 100,000 people at immediate risk of starvation. Tens of thousands have been killed. More than 1.5-million are in-ternally displaced, and nearly 2-million are seeking refuge in neighbouring countries. How would you assess the response of the international community?

GD: Since the outbreak of the war, we have seen millions of dollars in humani-tarian aid flow into South Sudan from a number of countries to help the people of South Sudan. Hence, the efforts of the international community should definitely be appreciated. However, the humanitarian aid dwarfs the current level of humani-tarian needs. Clearly, more resources are needed.

Sadly, as some countries send in hu-manitarian aid, others are busy supplying the weapons that fuel the violence, creat-ing the humanitarian crisis. I would say that the same international community is supplying arms with one hand and provid-ing assistance with the other hand. These conflicting efforts are not only self-defeat-ing, but also contribute to sustaining the civil war. This requires harmonization of policies aiming at humanitarian assistance and those on political processes to end the civil war.

CJ: Which areas should be the top prior-ities for international assistance?

GD: I would classify international assist-ance to two areas, namely humanitarian and political. On humanitarian assistance, in my view, priority definitely needs to

begin with areas hit by the recently an-nounced famine. However, equally im-portant emphasis needs to be given to areas that are not easily accessible, either because access is restricted by the warring parties or due to lack of roads.

On political assistance, I would say the support needed so much is mainly non-financial. It is the engagement to cultivate the necessary political will from the lead-ers of the various armed and non-armed opposition groups to set aside military actions and embark on genuine inclusive political dialogue to resolve the conflict. Of course, financial support will be re-quired to facilitate the political process once it is under way.

CJ: UNMISS [United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan] has been deployed in South Sudan since 2011. How effective has it been? Do you have any thoughts on potential changes to the mis-sion? What sort of peacekeeping mission do the circumstances call for?

GD: I think how well UNMISS has per-formed can be assessed from its track record of protecting civilians both inside and outside the camps. Civilians have been killed and women raped just outside UN camps without meaningful measures taken by the peacekeeping forces. It is even difficult to assert that civilians in the UN camps are safe. We have seen armed groups launch attacks and kill civilians who are in these UN camps. So there is an element of a false sense of security on the side of civilians.

It is important to note, though, that peacekeeping forces have successfully con-fronted, with necessary force, numerous threats posed by armed groups to civilians in the UN camps. A useful question to ask is: what would have happened to the thousands if they had not taken refuge in the UN camps? I would say that much as there are flaws in efforts to protect civil-ians, peacekeepers are still relevant in the current situation in South Sudan. Never-


SOUTH SUDAN

theless, we can all agree that South Sudan needs a form of peacekeeping that will make civilians feel safe both in and outside the UN camps.

CJ: The 2015 Peace Agreement to end the civil war was short-lived. Are you hopeful about the prospects for a cessation or sig-nificant reduction of armed violence?

GD: The main issue here is not a mat-ter of sharing the power among those who are fighting. Many South Sudanese can pick up arms as well, if getting the national cake is all about picking up arms and starting a fight. Accommodation has been a largely failed policy of Juba since the pre-independence of South Sudan. Several armed groups emerged following the 2010 general elections with various motivations. An open-ended amnesty and accommodation of these armed groups by Juba since then begun to establish a dangerous precedent. A precedent that if a group of persons has grievances or wants government positions, and they pick up arms, Juba will negotiate with them and offer them some wealth and employment. That is the same mindset sustaining the military approach to interacting with the government.

The point is, there are thousands of

other South Sudanese out there who have grievances and deserve to participate in shaping the future of South Sudan. And the people of South Sudan have yet to dis-cuss the principles and values upon which South Sudan shall be founded.

Inclusive nationwide dialogues are needed to agree on the important issues of power sharing among citizens of dif-ferent regions and communities—and not only those with guns. There are other issues, such as system of governance and resource sharing. These are all too import-ant to leave to those that are armed to de-cide alone. But certainly, political accom-modation is not the ultimate solution. Nei-ther is buying-off political opponents, but rather a clear and binding legal formula for inclusive and legitimate politics.

CJ: The country is awash in small arms and light weapons. How significant an ob-stacle are they to peacebuilding?

GD: From communities that rise up against each other in enduring cycles of violence and cattle rustling to the resolu-tion of interpersonal disputes, thuggery, and crimes, the manifestations of the small arms problem in South Sudan are clear.

The high proliferation of arms has a

left: Citizens celebrate in the streets as the Republic of South Sudan proclaims its independence in July 2011. Tim McKulka/UN


SOUTH SUDAN

direct impact on the security and safety of the people. The inability of the govern-ment to protect the vast majority of cit-izens undermines efforts to remove arms from the hands of citizens. Coupled with a weak justice sector, the legitimacy of the state is undermined, as it cannot establish a meaningful level of monopoly over the use of legitimate force.

With no justice system that makes it costly to misuse arms, and the state unable to provide security to its citizens, arms will remain a big obstacle to peacebuilding.

Some would say the solution lies in establishing the rule of law to render arms possession by civilians unnecessary. Others would argue that civilians need to be disarmed and the government should meaningfully establish control of the pos-session and use of small arms in the coun-try to achieve rule of law and security. However, I would argue the solution lies in meticulously pursuing the two tracks simultaneously.

CJ: Can the Arms Trade Treaty make a positive contribution to stemming the flow of arms?

GD: The ATT has the potential to curb arms flows to conflict situations such as South Sudan. However, so far, we haven’t seen states use the treaty to make that hap-pen. The focus has been on universaliza-tion and ensuring compliance of states parties and signatory states.

Unfortunately, most arms flowing to South Sudan are from countries that have neither ratified nor signed the treaty. The question here is, will the ATT member states sit and watch other countries sup-ply arms to conflict zones or will they actively engage non-members to apply the principles of the treaty in their transfers of arms for use in current crises such as South Sudan, Yemen, and Syria?

I would say there is a need to establish some diplomatic engagement mechanism to urge non-member states to stop supply-ing arms to high-risk areas. That way the

ATT will not only be an arms control re-gime of the future, but a relevant current tool for saving lives.

CJ: Food security is an immediate chal-lenge. Can this be achieved in the absence of a ceasefire or peace agreement? What immediate steps could the international community take?

GD: No doubt, without a ceasefire that is respected by all armed groups in South Sudan, it is impossible to address the famine that has been recently declared. On that note, achieving an immediate na-tionwide cessation of hostilities is the first step, not only for addressing the problem of food insecurity, but to restore a peace process to resolve the political crisis.

The international community needs to get tougher on securing a ceasefire and outlining the range of consequences viola-tions of ceasefire would attract. Without stern measures for violations, the parties will continue to sign and break agreements at will, while bloodshed continues and suffering of people rises.

CJ: The plight of refugees and internally displaced persons in South Sudan is inten-sifying, yet global attention seems primar-ily focused on Syria. What do you make of that?

GD: South Sudan currently is the world’s leading producer of refugees. About 1.2-million refugees fled the country, with Uganda hosting over 800,000 and continu-ing to welcome thousands every week. Constituting a global test and Africa’s worst humanitarian crisis since the Rwan-dan genocide of 1994, this trend deserves to top global conversations about solu-tions to the refugee question.

However, it is not surprising that that is not the case. Looking at it using the lens of securitization, it is partly because refugees from South Sudan are not fleeing in large numbers to Europe or America. In addition, it could be because Uganda

Cesar Jaramillo is the Executive Director of Project Ploughshares.

[email protected]


does not see them essentially as a security threat.

CJ: Was South Sudan ready for statehood in 2011? What could have been done dif-ferently?

GD: Those who argue that South Sudan’s birth was premature are missing the point. South Sudan was more than ripe for the birth of statehood. The overwhelming majority vote for independence is the most precise and authoritative indication that the people have chosen their destiny of independence.

The main issue around the birth of this country that connects to the current crisis was the lack of a basic consensus on what should follow the birth—and not only within the ruling party. Citizens na-tionwide were not given an opportunity to establish a social contract and decide on a national vision for the country.

So, after the dust of euphoria and ex-uberance of independence settled in 2011, the confusion over “what next” grew. That situation evolved into a dispute in the rul-ing party, the SPLM [Sudan People’s Liber-ation Movement], over which direction to lead the country. We saw individual party members—especially from the political bureau—claiming to possess a vision for the country. It was the failure of the ruling party to peacefully resolve this dispute that consequently led to the outbreak of the civil war in 2013.

CJ: What are your general impressions of the media coverage of the situation in South Sudan?

GD: In my view, the media coverage is generally focused on reporting about atrocities and less on the complex political issues surrounding the conflict. One of the implications of such reporting is that, for South Sudan to be on the news, there has to be a horrendous event that can compare to other crises such as Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. It also gives a sense that between these

infamous events, the situation is improv-ing. This depicts the conflict as a bunch of events rather than a process that deserves consistent coverage and untangling.

CJ: How did you become involved in advocacy for peace in South Sudan? Do you know of any grassroots peace efforts there?

GD: I was born in civil war, grew up in civil war and now, still experiencing a civil war. I have no greater motivation than the obligation this lays on me to make my country livable for my fellow citizens and myself.

CJ: You were recently threatened with vio-lence. What happened?

GD: Indeed, I came under a car-jacking attack last year in February. I had a loaded gun pointed at my head by robbers. Seated there impotent waiting for the two robbers to decide whether to take my life and the car or just the car. Fortunately, they took the car and spared my life. Sadly, such inci-dents are not uncommon in South Sudan. With the dire economic situation and the focus of state efforts and resources shifted from citizens’ security to fighting a war, an environment of insecurity and lawless-ness is created. Such an environment is not only suitable for breeding domestic criminality, but could also easily create safe havens for transnational organized crime.

CJ: Is there hope for South Sudan as a vi-able nation?

GD: There is hope, but these hopes are held hostage by the persistent violence. The real hope lies in recognizing that a significant minority of South Sudanese is perpetuating the violence. The majority of the population is against the prevalent bloodshed and the constant decline. The world should stand together with the un-armed majority to put the country on the path of peace and security and stability. □

SOUTH SUDAN


In early May, Project Ploughshares, in cooperation with the Institute of Air and Space Law at McGill University and our partners on the Space Security Index (SSI)

project, hosted the 14th annual Space Se-curity Working Group (SSWG) meeting in Montreal.

SSI aims to serve as a source of accur-ate information and current analysis on human activities in outer space. We hope that publishing our research findings each year will enable capacity building and support trust, transparency, and dialogue among global policymakers as they work to enhance the safe, sustainable, and secure use of outer space for all users. The annual Space Security Index volume, available in hard and electronic versions, distills and organizes open-access infor-mation on how global actors are using space, the effects of these activities on the space environment, the development of new technologies, and governance ef-forts to maintain outer space as a peace-ful domain. This is important work that no one else is doing.

But the product of the research is not the only significant outcome of this annual process, in which Project

Ploughshares has been engaged for a dozen years. The process itself is also impactful. And the Space Security Work-ing Group meeting is at its heart.

Seasoned experts meet budding scholarsThe draft SSI report is researched and written by university students operating out of three centres: the Institute of Air and Space Law at McGill University, the Space Policy Institute at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and the Research Unit for Military Law and Ethics at The University of Adelaide in Australia. During the winter

Behind the scenes with Project Ploughshares The Space Security Index

By Jessica West


SPACE SECURITY INDEX


term, they have toiled away on various sections of the report and submitted their work to Jessica West at Project Ploughshares, the SSI’s operating hub. Here the draft sections are checked, analyzed, edited, and organized, in preparation for the May meeting.

The primary function of the SSWG is to bring together some of the student re-searchers with space experts from around the world, who review the work to date and guide revisions. This year, about 30 participants assembled in Montreal. We were honoured to work with David Ken-dall, the current Canadian Chair of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS); Jonathan Mc-Dowell from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Sanat Kaul from the International Foundation for Aviation, Aerospace, and Development in India; Steven Freeland from Western Sydney University in Australia; and Karl Doetsch from Athena Global. Key civil society experts included Laura Grego from the Union of Concerned Scien-tists, Brian Weeden from Secure World Foundation, and Jana Robinson from the Prague Security Studies Institute.

The review process is critical to the production of a useful, accurate publica-tion that will appear in a few months’ time. But there are other significant out-comes from the two-day event. The con-versations that take place build the kind of relationships that are critical to peace and security in the global environment that is outer space. Experts dialogue with others from different fields of expertise and different countries and agree on a set of facts to describe key developments in outer space.

The meeting is held under the Chat-ham House Rule, which means that com-ments can be used to improve the infor-mation provided in the annual report, but cannot be attributed to any person or institution. This rule creates a safe en-vironment to discuss issues openly. Con-versations around the table also provide

an opportunity to collectively reflect on the nature of changes taking place in the use of outer space, and to enter into de-bates on what some of the most pressing governance challenges are and how they might be addressed.

Our student researchers could be among the next generation of leaders who work to preserve the secure and sus-tainable use of space. This project helps them to develop research, analytical, and writing skills. It lets them see the importance of the safety, security, and sustainability of outer space to their own lives and the lives of everyone on Earth. And, for those who were able to attend the May meeting, it puts them in close communication with global leaders and experts.

Public engagementThis year, as in several past years, we also hosted a public event. Sponsored by the Institute of Air and Space Law, this year’s panel focused on the 50th anniversary of the Outer Space Treaty and the future of space governance. On the panel were Canada’s former Ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament Paul Meyer, Melissa de Zwart of The University of Adelaide, Laura Grego, and David Ken-dall. In a field in which reality increas-ingly resembles science fiction, conver-sations with the audience touched on a range of challenges from arms control in outer space to the future of space mining regulations and visions for human settle-ments in outer space.

The research team is now equipped with new facts, sources, and insights that will be used to create a more accurate and useful publication. All participants also came away with a greater sense of the urgency of our efforts, the import-ance of open and transparent dialogue, and an appreciation of the many people around the world who are committed to maintaining outer space as a peaceful, global commons for the benefit of all humanity. □

Jessica West is a Program Officer with Project Ploughshares.

[email protected]

opposite: The Space Security Working Group hosted a public panel that included Melissa de Zwart from the University of Adelaide; David Kendall, the Canadian Chair of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space; Laura Grego, Union of Concerned Scientists; and Ambassador Paul Meyer (retired), The Simons Foundation. Photo: Dale Stephens

SPACE SECURITY INDEX


Canadian peacebuildersTo commemorate Canada’s 150th annivesary, The Ploughshares Monitor is launching a series that will focus on Canadian men and women who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of peace.

On December 14, 2016, these words of Douglas Roche appeared in the Edmonton Journal:

It’s hard to think of a year in recent times when the world was in such disarray and people felt so fearful about the future. Christmas is supposed to rejuvenate us and revive our hope for peace, but Christmas 2016 seems to have an uphill climb.

Is it possible to hope for a peaceful world when mass shootings and acts of terrorism dominate the media, when refugees stream out of war zones and de-stabilize world politics, when 21st century cyberwarfare is underway, when global warming is producing extreme weather patterns and crop failures, when governments refuse to empower the United Nations to enforce peace? My answer is yes.

Recently, Doug—Officer of the Order of Canada, former Member of the Canadian Parliament and Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament and Canadian Senator—circulated a brief piece of perhaps wishful thinking among some of his colleagues in the peace network. We thought that his imagined scenario—of something that has NOT happened, but could and, indeed, must—deserved a wider audience.

The determined optimist: Hon. Douglas Roche, O.C.

In the following fictionalized—and idealized—account we can clearly see all the steps that Doug believes are necessary to achieve nuclear abolition.

The next question is: How can we make this dream a reality?


CANADIAN PEACEBUILDERS

Return to Reykjavík United States-Russia Pledge end of Nuclear Weapons

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson today told the UN Security Council that U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will hold a Summit in Reykjavík to start a new process to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Although the Security Council meeting was called to deal with the North Korea nuclear weapons crisis, Mr. Tillerson said at the outset of his remarks: “My government fully understands that there can be no successful resolution of regional nuclear weapons problems unless a global solution is implemented. In secret phone calls over the past ten days, President Trump and President Putin have decided to abandon the step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament, which has proven over the past thirty years to be ineffective, and start work immediately to build a global legal regime that will prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons everywhere. President Trump has authorized me to tell this august body: ‘A nuclear weapons-free world will be a great world.’”

Mr. Tillerson added that both leaders were inspired by the action of their predecessors, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev, in a summit in Reykjavík in 1986, where they nearly came to an agreement to eliminate nuclear arsenals. “This time, we will not allow nuclear negotiations to be derailed by the claims that missile defence systems must be permitted. We have learned that missile defence systems drive the development of new nuclear weapons. Our goal is now the elimination of both nuclear weapons and missile defence systems.”

At this point in his remarks, Mr. Tillerson was interrupted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who expressed unhappiness at the U.S. announcement because President Putin wanted to make it himself at a meeting of the Russian Supreme Council later in the day. Mr. Lavrov said: “Russia will not be second to anyone in pledging our utmost endeavours to rid the world of nuclear weapons, which, as everyone knows, has been President Putin’s goal ever since he assumed office. Since the United States has peremptorily announced the Reykjavík Summit, I will go one step further and confirm that one week later, Russia will convene a meeting in Geneva of all the nuclear-weapons states for the express purpose of developing a comprehensive global plan to guarantee mutual, assured, and verifiable nuclear disarmament.”

Mr. Lavrov added that Presidents Putin and Trump had already agreed to triple their contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency to enable it to carry out detailed verification inspections in all nuclear weapons countries. This money will be obtained by ceasing the current nuclear modernization programs. “The amount of money the nuclear states can now divert to building the structures of peace is staggering,” Mr. Lavrov said.

Sensing the tension between Mr. Tillerson and Mr. Lavrov about which country could do more for nuclear disarmament, UN Secretary-General António Guterres took the floor and, in rapid succession, drew from the Ambassadors of China, the United Kingdom, and France political and financial commitments to build a global regime to enforce nuclear disarmament. The Secretary-General said: “I feel it important to reveal to the Council that I anticipated the remarkable leadership just shown by the United States and Russia, the major possessors of nuclear weapons, and took it upon myself to obtain the commitments of India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—the remaining nuclear powers—that they will enthusiastically join in the development of a global regime.”

Suddenly, the hands of several Middle Eastern ambassadors shot in the air. “You have forgotten one thing,” the Ambassador of Egypt said, “we will not be denied our right to hold a special conference on the Elimination of Nuclear and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East. I want to announce that Israel has agreed to attend the conference and we want it held immediately, as originally planned, in Finland. Thereupon, a chorus of voices broke out, calling “Action Now!” But other voices could be heard muttering: “We don’t need regional meetings, we want a global regime.”

Mr. Tillerson, chairing the meeting, called for order. “Distinguished delegates,” he said, “all countries and the highly informed representatives of civil society must work together in an orderly way to build a world of common security. Regional disarmament must give way to global disarmament. No country has a right to dominate another.” Then he stopped. His eye had caught the eye of the Austrian ambassador, holding his country’s name card in his hand, and Mr. Tillerson remembered that the nuclear Ban Treaty negotiations were already under way. The U.S. Secretary of State said: “Mr. Ambassador, do you wish to speak?” The Austrian Ambassador looked over at his colleagues from Ireland and Mexico, and said:

“Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it is necessary for me to speak at this time. Events are unfolding.”



Rt. Honourable Justin TrudeauPrime Minister of CanadaHouse of Commons Ottawa, May 8, 2017

Re: Canadian Leadership and Action on Nuclear Disarmament Urgently Needed

Dear Prime Minister,

We, the more than one hundred undersigned, all having been honoured by appointment to the Order of Canada, appeal to you and your Govern-ment to give urgent attention and leadership to re-energizing nuclear disarmament in the face of mounting nuclear dangers. Any such efforts will win the overwhelming support of Canadians.

ESCALATING NUCLEAR PERILThe world has entered its most dangerous nuclear moment since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. As former US Defense Secretary William Perry has concluded, “The likelihood of a nuclear catastrophe today is greater than it was during the Cold War.”

North Korea’s violations of its Security Council obligations and its irresponsible nuclear attack threats are now matched by reckless counter-threats; the world’s disarmament machinery suffers from a severe loss of confidence; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has failed to deliver on its promise of abolition; the arsenals of the major powers are being “modernized” instead of dismantled; NATO, including its non-nuclear weapons members, continues to embrace nuclear deterrence; the risk of deliberate nuclear weapons use is compounded by the growing dangers of miscalcula-tion and accidental nuclear attacks.

Ban Ki-moon, recently retired as UN Secretary-General, calls the current crisis on the Korean Peninsula “truly frightening,” and warns that “the world is moving closer to nuclear annihilation.”

REMEMBERING HUMANITYIn their famous 1955 manifesto, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell called on us to “remember our humanity and forget the rest,” so in that humani-tarian spirit, we call on your government to:• Lead an urgent call to end provocative rhetoric and sabre rattling over North Korea in favour of a return to sustained engagement and negotiations in pursuit of a denuclearized Korean peninsula.• Urge the US and Russia to publicly reaffirm and act on their “unequivocal undertaking,” as agreed at the 2010 NPT Review Conference, “to accom-plish, in accordance with the principle of irreversibility, the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” • Respect and support multilateral efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons by ending Canada’s boycott of the current UN General Assembly nego-tiations of a treaty to ban all nuclear weapons and by joining the next session of talks (scheduled for June 15 to July 7, 2017).

A MATTER OF URGENCY A 2010 unanimous Parliamentary motion urged the government of Canada to “deploy a major world-wide Canadian diplomatic initiative” in support of nuclear disarmament. Now, in this time of heightened nuclear peril, we urge your Government to take up that challenge and do all it can to convert the vision of a world without nuclear weapons into reality.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Acker, CMBruce Aikenhead, OC Lloyd Axworthy, CCTom Axworthy, OCChristopher Barnes, CM Gerry Barr, CMMichel Bastarache, CC Paul Beeston, CMMonique Bégin, OC Tony Belcourt, OCAvie Bennett, CCRobin Boadway, OCEd Broadbent, CC Tim Brodhead, OC Elaine Carty, CMPaul Copeland, CMGisèle Côté-Harper, OC Anne Crocker, CMDavid Cronenberg, CCLibby Davies, CM Thomas De Koninck CM

Michael Dence, OCStephen Drance, OC Howard Dyck, CMPat Ferns, CMYves Fortier, CCKen Fyke, CMBob Glossop, CMAnthony Graham, CMClarence Guenter, CMBuzz Hargrove, OCJudith Hall, OCBrian Haynes, OCGerry Helleiner, OC Charles Hill, CMMargaret Hilson, OCCatherine Hooper, CM Laurent Isabelle, CMDan Ish, OCRichard W. Ivey, CM Jon Jennekens, OCSven Johansson, CM

Harold Kalant, CMBruce Kidd, OC Bonnie Klein, OC Michael Klein, CM Lucia Kowaluk, CMKen Kramer, CMMarcel Kretz, CMEva Kushner, OC Patrick Lane, OC John Last, OCDennis Lee, OCRita Letendre, OCJacques Levesque, CMBarbara S. Lollar, CCRoy MacGregor, OCGarfield Mahood, OC Leon Major, CMJoe Mancini, CM Stephanie Mancini, CM David Matas, OC Elizabeth May, OC

Maurice McGregor, OCDon McKay, OCJohn McKellar, CM Jonathan Meakins, OCJohn Meisel, CCAnn Mortifee, CM Jock Murray, OCPeter Newbery, OC John O’Donnell, CMMaureen O’Neil, OCJames Orbinski, OC Bridglal Pachai, CMLandon Pearson, OCGordon Perkin, OC John Polanyi, CC Alfred H. E. Popp, CMAlison Prentice, CMValerie Pringle, CMGordon Rankin, OC Ernie Regehr, OCDouglas Roche, OC

Nancy Ruth, CM Ezra Schabas, CMJack Shapiro, CM Michael Shenstone, CM David Silcox, CMJennifer Simons, CMIan Smillie, CM Rosemary Sullivan, OCVeronica Tennant, CCLinda Thom, CMMurray Thomson, OCSetsuko Thurlow, OCJane Urquhart, OC Tony Urquhart, OCMichel Vennat, OC John Wada, OCJames Walker, CMDouglas Ward, CMAnne H. Wieler, CMBlossom Wigdor, CMLois Wilson, CC



In memoriam

Ann Strauss Gertler

Ann Gertler was 94 when she died at the end of April. In the newspaper notice of her death, she was charac-terized as a “determined and passionate advocate for peace, abolition of war and nuclear weapons, tireless promoter of international solutions especially through the UN, consultant to government delegations and

peace organizations in Canada and internationally.… Ann worked alongside Muriel Duckworth, Nancy Pocock, Kay McPherson, Simone Monet Chartrand, Murray Thomson, Diana Wright, Ursula Franklin, Douglas Roche, Jeanne Sauvé and many others against war and for sane foreign policy.”

Ann was active with Project Ploughshares. For years she was the Ploughshares representative at the United Nations in New York and Geneva. She was involved in the local Ploughshares group in Montreal. Her Ploughshares colleagues remember her with gratitude and respect:

From Ploughshares co-founder Ernie Regehr:Ann was for many years a member of the Board of Project Ploughshares—a deeply committed, energetic advocate for another way. Of course, that was but one of the many places and contexts in which her voice was influential and her example inspirational.

From Bev Delong, member of Ploughshares Calgary: Ann Gertler was a wonderful influence on my life. She encouraged me to join the Board of Project Ploughshares. I recall her calling for us to widen our goals beyond nuclear disarmament to abolition of war. I also recall Ann telling me that one of the proudest moments of her life was walking through the streets of New York City among the one-million-person march on July 12, 1982 held to encourage progress at the UN Second Session on Disarmament. I will miss her persistence, wisdom, and expertise!

From Phyllis Creighton, former member of the national Ploughshares Board: Ann was passionate, utterly committed to the vision that it’s time to abolish war. Persistent and stubborn, she made a real difference in many places, including the Voice of Women. Alive with ideas and eager to support others, she was also a good friend. Ann will long be remembered with gratitude and love.

From Debbie Grisdale, member of the Ploughshares Governing Committee:A wonderful and impassioned voice for peace and the abolition of war and nuclear weapons has gone silent—on Earth, anyway.

Join our work to advance international peace and security by making a tax-deductible donation today.

Visit www.ploughshares.ca or call 519-888-6541.

the ploughshares monitor - home page - project...

Documents