Canada caves under US pressure at UN

October 14, 2005

Last week Canada and five other countries (Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, Brazil and Kenya) circulated a practical, innovative proposal to "jump-start" discussions at the United Nations on nuclear disarmament and preventing the weaponization of space.

The proposal was to be tabled for discussion on Wednesday, October 12th, at the UN General Assembly's First Committee (a body to discuss peace and security issues). The proposal, would have resulted in some progress being made on these issues, while the UN Conference on Disarmament, is hopelessly blocked from discussions because of resistance from nuclear powers, especially the United States.

In response to the proposal the USA made formal objections to Canada and the other co-sponsors and Canada withdrew its co-sponsorship as a result. Apparently - according to peace activists close to the scene - that the order to withdraw came from the Prime Minister's office directly, over the objections of Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew and many disarmament experts within the department. Faced with the imminent loss of Canada as a cosponsor, the other countries apparently decided to not go it alone and thus, the whole proposal was never tabled for discussion.

Because the USA does not want to discuss multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation agreements, should they be able to prevent everyone else from discussing them? Why is Paul Martin so ready to crumble in the face of George W. Bush's objections?

Today there are more than 26,000 nuclear weapons in the world, left over from the Cold War, that still await launch on a moment's notice. The Bush administration wants to develop new "usable" nuclear weapons, and intends to be the first to put weapons into space.

Please write your local newspaper using a couple (or more) of the following points:

• This proposal is precisely the kind of innovative, practical and constructive ACTION that Canadians expect given lofty rhetoric of the Prime Minister at the UN General Assembly, proclaiming Canada's support for multilateralism in the Lester Pearson tradition. Why is Paul Martin so ready to crumble in the face of George W. Bush's objections?
  
  
• Even during the Cold War other Liberal governments voted against the US on disarmament issues more than half the time. Why is Paul Martin so weak especially at a time when Canadians are demanding that we distance ourselves from the aggressive US foreign policies?
  
  
• [Quote] Peggy Mason, a former Canadian ambassador on disarmament, said "Canada is caving because of American pressure. It's so utterly unreasonable [for the U.S.] to take the position that we can't even have a discussion of these issues.[which] are vital to Canadian interests." [See Globe & Mail, Thursday, October 13, 2005]
  
  
• Paul Martin is relying on his decision not to join missile defence to create the image of an independent foreign policy. But this is the real Paul Martin - caving into to US bullying. If he were really opposed to the missile defence, he would have continued to promote this proposal which included preventing the weaponization of space
  
  
• Where should our government stand? Alongside the belligerent Bush administration (which wants to develop new "usable" nuclear weapons), or alongside other nations that seek disarmament and security for everyone - not just the wealthy states that hold all of the weapons?
  
  
• Canadians overwhelmingly support the United Nations to promote peace and security, want to abolish nuclear weapons, and want to prevent the weaponization of space. Paul Martin is totally out of touch with citizens on this issue.
  
  
• Paul Martin talks tough on trade then wimps out on nuclear disarmament demonstrating to the US that in the end he is all talk and no action. When will he stand up for Canada?

(Prepared with notes form Peggy Mason, Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament at the United Nations, and Chair of the Group of 78)

« back to index