Executive Summary

Canada has a unique history of working in and with the United Nations as well as being allied with the United States. There are many ways in which our traditional policies are being challenged by the US. At the same time the world faces critical problems of the growing gap between rich and poor, the development of global military force, the threat of terrorism and the degradation of the ecological health of the planet. These are outlined and many suggestions for government policy are made.

Introduction

Applied technology and modern military strategies have reached the point where they threaten the viability of the global ecosystem and of human communities. Canada’s aim to establish a secure nation depends more than ever on our ability to work towards a secure and sustainable world. This ability arises largely from Canada’s membership in the United Nations and its influence in all UN bodies.

This paper establishes ways in which Canada could become more of the solution to our global problems and less a part of those problems.

Canada and the United Nations

Canadian foreign policy flows partly from our membership in the United Nations. This has been affirmed by Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

The effectiveness of the UN is being compromised by new, looser interpretations of its Charter. The first of the purposes in its Charter is “To maintain international peace and security and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” And ”. . . to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security. . . that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.”(1).

The original intention within the Charter, that a nation has the right to defend itself, has been used to justify military involvement around the world, a pre-emptive policy wherein US troops are now stationed in many countries.

We have much influence at the UN through the many Canadians who work there, for example, Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette, head of the Human Development Index Sharon Capeling, chair of the conference to set up the International Criminal Court Philippe Kirsch, UNICEF advisor, Newton Bowles, (deceased) founder of the International Ocean Institute Elisabeth Mann Borghese and special envoy to Africa Stephen Lewis. A new appointment of a Canadian is Nigel Fisher, Kofi Annan’s special representative for humanitarian affairs in Afghanistan.

Canada was a founding member of the UN and was instrumental in formulating some of the UN principles that are now being eroded. We note that one of the core UN documents, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was drafted by Canadian John Humphrey (2).

Canada and NATO

The reasoning that Canada must be part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in order to influence its policy is false. We are failing to influence policy through NATO in any way that would lead to a more peaceful world. In fact NATO is supplanting United Nations’ peacekeeping institutions and interfering with the UN Secretary General’s role in preventing war. NATO has also delayed the formation of the European Security and Defence Policy. And it is in danger of setting up conflicting coalitions of countries between those included in or excluded from NATO.

Since NATO has a doctrine (Article 5) of defending against an attacker of any NATO country that can have the effect of initiating and spreading conflicts. One country’s enemy becomes the enemy of all. As more countries are admitted into NATO and the Partners for Peace the problem spreads. “NATO has turned itself from an organization committed to defending the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of its members into a worldwide police force with an effectively unlimited mandate.” (3).

Canada and the United States

Because the US is refusing to ratify, is rejecting, or ignoring many UN conventions and agreements forged over many years, it makes Canada’s cooperation very difficult (4).

US military forces have the mandate of protecting American citizens and US business interests around the world. They have not been trained and have little experience in peacekeeping. Through its 800 bases in 60 countries the US threatens other nations by its presence, its possession of nuclear weapons, its coalitions, both military and economic, and by its regular military exercises

Although there has been a substantial reduction in the number of nuclear weapons the search for smaller, more effective nuclear weapons continues. Among so-called conventional weapons the new “cluster bombs” act in a similar way to landmines. As Lloyd Axworthy pointed out in the Keith Davey Lecture at Victoria University on February 20, 2002, Canada may not be able to live up to its agreement not to use landmines if our forces are under US command. We have already experienced the terrible effects of the use of depleted uranium on the battlefields of Kuwait (5).

It is evident that Canada sometimes serves as a support for the actions of the US. We have suddenly given up our right to command our own forces in Afghanistan. It seems that the United Nations has not been consulted on the type of operation there.

Our acquiescence in altering our own security regulations after the terrorism of September 11 is one example of US domestic influence. The present review may be another. Terrorism is a problem but it is not new. The United Nations has taken many steps to deal with terrorism and there are many UN agreements on this subject (6). In addition there are various agencies such as Europol to deal with this type of crime.

The United States is breaking long-standing treaties put in place after years of negotiation. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty are two. The US not only rejects the promise of an International Criminal Court to try dictators or terrorists it has been reported the US also intends to deny aid to any country ratifying the Statute. And there is talk of the US abandoning its “no use of nuclear weapons” policy against non-nuclear states.

The US seems to be planning for the military encirclement of China as part of the domination by Western forces of the Asia Pacific area. This exceedingly dangerous policy will lead to further militarization of the region and runs counter to Canada’s desire to befriend China, a fellow member of the United Nations.

There is also much evidence that the US through its Space Command and global satellite systems intends to dominate all areas of the world (7). The evidence comes from the “Vision for 2020” Space Command Pentagon document and is properly part of this review. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law and the Convention on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is intended to prevent the militarization of space, agreements the US is ignoring.

In futile attempts to defend themselves many poor countries spend more on their militaries than on the well-being of their own citizens. This in itself will lead to more conflict.

It is instructive that although Mexico is an ally, a trading partner, NAFTA member and neighbour of the United States, it did not send troops to Afghanistan. It only contributes to multinational UN Peacekeeping forces on request. Canada should do the same.

Canada and Military Exports

Canada continues to be one of the largest if not the largest producer of military and dual use goods (per capita) of any country (8). Our attempts to export only to countries which do not violate human rights fail because we export to the US and do not know the end use afterwards. Our arms exports are contributing to wars, to poverty and to further aggression.

It is also true that today’s enemies are tomorrow’s friends and vice versa. The military goods we ship to one country can and have been used against us. An example of this is occurring in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and the Taliban have switched from friend to enemy in a short time and where our troops are in territory seeded with landmines both Russian and American.

Military production in Canada is encouraged by the fact that military production is exempt from Free Trade Agreement rules against subsidies(9). As unemployment rises in many countries governments turn to military production, as in Brazil. We live in a world of “Patriot” weapons and matchstick children (10).

Canada and September 11

The events of September 11, 2001, do not just show the evil ingenuity of terrorists they also show the futility of modern high tech expensive weapons and of elaborate space weapons systems in defending the American public. We must not be persuaded to adopt expensive counter-productive technology such as the US National Missile Defence. From past experience we know other countries will try to develop their own defence against NMD. This leads to dangerous new (possibly nuclear) arms races in a world already suffering from numerous chronic civil wars (11). China, India and Pakistan are all developing more missiles at a time of tension over Kashmir (12). There are easier, cheaper ways to harm another country, as the terrorist attacks show.

Another effect of 9/11 is the introduction of Bills 35, 36 and 42. These bills are opposed by most lawyer’s associations in Canada as unnecessary and detrimental to our civil rights. New powers for CSIS to detain and charge suspects without a fair, open trial are contravening The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This comes at a time when our government needs criticism from citizens in hearings like this in order to learn some unpleasant truths. Canada is a contributor to some of the world’s worst problems. Canada is part of the system which is the biggest factor in the pollution of our planet, i.e., military research, production and use. Yet we are passing legislation which will limit citizens’ ability to criticize the government or to protest. Young people understand well the need to change our policies and are turning to the only way they know of drawing attention to this. That is the reason there are increasing numbers of street protests. In Rome there were 700,000 people in a protest in March 2002.

Global military forces, of which we are a part, use vast quantities of oil, a major factor in climate change. In addition this dependency on supplies of oil leads again and again to conflicts. September 11 is linked to the desire of the United States to build and control an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. Moreover profits from oil companies fund dictatorships, block the use of green technology, and distort democracies around the world (13).

Canada and Military Lobbyists

Most regular advisors to the government on defence and foreign policy are in favour of increased militarization. These include space agencies, the Conference of Defence Associations, nuclear agencies, military producers, veterans associations, and right- wing think tanks. These usually include the Fraser, Howe and Mackenzie Institutes and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives

Forgotten is UN Security Council resolution #1325 supported by Canada which states that women must “fully participate” in conflict prevention, peace negotiations and post-conflict reconstruction. Not only are women excluded from peace negotiations they are largely absent from all the decision-making bodies that set the global rules for Canada.

Also countries that suffer from First World-driven policies are absent from the negotiating tables. Contrast the participation of the states in the G8 with the 190 members of the United Nations. It is not acceptable or wise for a few rich countries to chart the world’s future path.

We note that very few, if any, women will be part of the official G8 meeting in Kananaskis, June 2002 or part of the ongoing negotiations on the Free Trade Area of the Americas or the World Trade Organization. In Canada we know that, in spite of strong corporate pressure it is possible for a government to order companies to stop producing military goods as shown by the cessation of landmine production in Canada. The close cooperation between the Canadian government and the Antipersonnel Landmine Coalition indicates that progress is made when non-governmental organizations and governments work together. The Rotary Club of Toronto Eglinton is part of a large project by Rotary International to contribute to the clearing of landmines. Even though landmine clearance is important there are many other problems that still result from Canada’s foreign and military actions.

Canadian Foreign Policy for the 21^st Century

The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson provided an early alternative to conflict by setting up the UN Peacekeeping Forces in 1957(1). There were important principles: an invitation to set up such a force, a ceasefire, an ongoing negotiation, an impartial policing force to keep the warring parties apart, the makeup of the force not to include any stakeholder nations, and unarmed or lightly armed troops. When these principles are not in place we should not participate, but when they are, we should continue our strong commitment.

Canada should be one country that people can count on for forward-looking policies leading to peace and the preservation of our planet. More important than the size of our military, now at 55,000 at a cost of $11.2 billion, is the development of a clear mission designed to mitigate conflict and the problems associated with increased militarism.

Prime Minister Jean Chretien has opposed the globalization of the “war on terrorism” and I commend him and the government for that. To deal with terrorism the United Nations has enacted 28 treaties and agreements (6). These could be strengthened and made more effective without engaging in global control mechanisms and further militarization.

We should redefine our mission and retrain our soldiers to adapt to the Pearson mandate, to the facilitation of humanitarian objectives and to the preservation of the planetary ecosystem as the prime methods of ensuring security.

Our military has shown itself to be capable of engaging in many activities that help move the world away from war:

• Training local police forces as in Kosovo
• De-mining of anti-personnel mines.
• Cleaning up military sites such as the DEW line in Canada.
• Clearing the snow from mountain roads in Afghanistan to allow the passage of humanitarian assistance.
• Supervising and providing materials for elections in countries such as El Salvador.
• Assisting in constitution building in countries such as Cambodia.
• Dealing with post-war or post-atrocity trauma as General Romeo Dallaire has initiated for soldiers.
• Conducting search and rescue operations

• Canada’s civil expertise helped put out the extensive fires in Kuwait as a result of the Gulf War.
• Canada has assisted with personnel and aid in times of hurricanes, floods, volcanic eruptions, landslides, ice storms, etc.

Canadian forces are better suited to war prevention, war attenuation and post-war operations than to the new war strategy of using expensive, high-flying planes to bomb targets. The destruction inevitably includes women and children. Such tactics also devastate the land, ruin architectural heritage, destroy the local economy and pollute countries near and far.

Consultations with the many Canadian non-governmental organizations working in countries around the world would benefit our policy decisions and suggest ways Canadian troops could contribute to building peaceful, more democratic societies.

The problem of recruitment for the Canadian forces might be solved if the forces were more engaged in humanitarian activities and were trained and equipped for those actions.

Recommendations

1)The Defence Department, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Industry Canada, the Ministry for International Cooperation, the Environment and Finance Ministries should all work together so that they have the same mission of promoting peace, preserving the planet, helping to build democratic institutions and decreasing the abject poverty of millions of people.

2)We need to set out, before anything goes forward, the prerequisites for Canada to take part in any engagement. These would include a parliamentary debate and approval, taking into consideration our new mandate of promoting peace, justice and the environment.

3)If there is the danger of substantial or long-lasting environmental destruction the request to participate should be rejected. This will require an environmental assessment and consultation with experts.

4)Canada is uniquely qualified to offer help in preventing conflict, in following the United Nations’ conventions and the Geneva Convention and in delivering humanitarian assistance.

5)If Canada supports a large increase in the UN regular budget and core staff the UN will be better able to respond to global crises (14).

6)The Free Trade Agreement (Area) of the Americas is a flawed protocol which has already been proven to be destructive of local economies and culture, national economic planning, local environmental protection, and the wise use of natural resources. (15)

7)We should not aim to “fit seamlessly” into U.S. forces or coalitions. We cannot afford to do so both because of the high cost to our defence budget or in light of our principles of trying to establish justice and peace. Canada can remain proud of this mandate which fits so well with our work at the United Nations.

The dominance of the United States on the world stage as the latest superpower is leading to a clash of values. The struggle against terrorism is shifting into confrontational alignments. It is of critical importance that Canada assist those who are suffering from the militarization and degradation of the planet, act as a peacemaker and try to reduce the growing gap between rich and poor. To do otherwise is to encourage terrorism, betray our own citizens and further endanger our future.

Notes

(1) “The Blue Helmets: A Review of United Nations Peace-keeping” 1990 United Nations Publication

(2) “Canadians and the United Nations” ed. Clyde Sanger 1988 Communications and Culture Branch, Department of External Affairs, Ottawa.

(3) ”The International Criminal Tribunal: Guardian of the New World Order” by John Laughland.

(4) The US:

• withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
• rejected the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Protocol
• opposed the UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms
• reduced its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22%
• opposed the International Criminal Court Treaty
• rejected the Anti-Personnel Land Mine Treaty rejected the Kyoto Protocol of 1997
• withdrew from the International Conference on Racism
• rejected the Comprehensive (Nuclear) Test Ban Treaty withdrew from UNESCO
• did not ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
• did not ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
• did not ratify the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

(5) “Discounted Casualties: The Human Cost of Depleted Uranium” by Akira Tashito. Chugoku Shimbun Press 2001.

(6) ”International Instruments Related to the Prevention and Suppression of International Terrorism” United Nations 2001.

(7) “The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat to our Planet” by Karl Grossman, professor of journalism, State University of New York College at Old Westbury. Common Courage Press 1997.

Also “Planet Earth the Latest Weapon of War” by Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Black Rose Books 2001.

(8) DFAIT Military Export Report and Export of Military Goods from Canada, Annual Reports 1990-1999.

(9) Canada and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Third Report on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 1997.

(10) “The Globalization of Poverty: Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms” by Michel Chossudovsky (Zed Books Ltd. 1997)

(11) According to Project Ploughshares Armed Conflict Report 2001 there were 40 conflicts in 35 countries.

(12) ”International Concern over Danger of Conflict in South Asia”, article in Disarmament Diplomacy January/February 2002

(13) ”Petrotyranny” by John Bacher (Science for Peace, 2001)