Sponsored by: Project Ploughshares

Facilitated by:

Senator Douglas Roche, O.C.
Former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament

Bill Robinson
Program Associate, Project Ploughshares

Ernie Regehr
Policy and Public Affairs Director, Project Ploughshares

Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Toronto,
Kingston, Peterborough, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Montreal,
Fredericton, Charlottetown, Halifax, St. John's

Contents

Executive Summary

Report of Discussions with Community Leaders across Canada

Background
Emerging Themes
Actions Taken

Appendix A: Voices of Canadians
Appendix B: Roundtable Summary
Appendix C: List of Participants (not available online)

Aknowledgements

Executive Summary

 1. For the second time, September 8-26, 1998, Project Ploughshares conducted a series of
Roundtables on the subject of nuclear weapons for community leaders and interested citizens
across Canada. The first such exercise, in 1996, produced a national report recommending that
Canada formally review its policies on nuclear weapons. This recommendation was accepted by
the Government of Canada and a review launched by Parliament's Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

On the eve of publication of the Parliamentary Committee's report, Project Ploughshares carried
out a second set of Roundtables in 16 cities in all 10 provinces to discuss the current
non-proliferation crisis and to consider ways to encourage stronger Canadian Government
policies for nuclear weapons abolition and deeper public support for such policies.
The Roundtables were attended by 384 persons representing a wide range of Canadians: MPs,
members of provincial legislature, mayors, municipal counsellors, school board members, a
former Lieutenant Governor, a survivor of the Nagasaki bombing, business and religious leaders,
academics and educators at all levels, students, peace group activists and military experts, health
professionals, artists and environmentalists.

The participants attended by invitation, and each person received a 55-page Briefing Book:
"Nuclear Weapons: The Problem, The Solution, Canada's Role." Each Roundtable lasted
two-and-a-half hours. It began with a short video recalling the scenes of the aftermath of the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and then showing military and political leaders
speaking out against nuclear weapons.

A presentation at most of the Roundtables was made by Douglas Roche, O. C., former Canadian
Ambassador for Disarmament and Chairperson of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons. At one point in the tour, Mr. Roche was appointed by the Prime Minister as Senator
from Alberta and absented himself for a few days. His place was taken by Ernie Regehr and Bill
Robinson of Project Ploughshares.

2. There was virtually a unanimous call at the Roundtables for Canada to join the New Agenda
Coalition (NAC), a new initiative of eight middle-power States now pressing the Nuclear
Weapons States (NWS) to commit themselves unequivocally to the elimination of nuclear
weapons and to immediate practical steps and negotiations required for elimination.

3. Since the core of NAC's program is contrary to NATO's policy, which holds that nuclear
weapons continue to be "essential," Canada has, so far, refused to join in with NAC. The
Roundtable participants specifically asked the Canadian Government to vote for the NAC
resolution at UNGA 53, and to work to get nuclear weapons out of NATO.

4. While deploring the nuclear weapons testing by India and Pakistan, participants pointed out
that the real problem continues to be the reluctance of the NWS to agree to commence
negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Special attention was paid to the
determination of the United States to retain the strategy of nuclear deterrence as a cornerstone of
its military doctrine, and to ways to encourage the U.S. to accept its responsibilities to uphold
humanitarian law.

5. Congratulating the Canadian Government for its leadership role in the development and now
implementation of the Landmines Treaty, participants urged Canada to play a similar leadership
role in the abolition of nuclear weapons. They noted this would be much harder than the
landmines issue, but that the new mechanism of NAC buttressed by the Middle Powers Initiative,
a network of prominent international NGOs specializing in nuclear disarmament, provides a way
for Canada to work in the good company of like-minded States, and with a supportive
international NGO community.

6. Canadian public opinion, though strong in numbers (92 percent of Canadians favour Canada
playing a leading role in international work for nuclear disarmament), is weak in expression.
The NGO community in Canada needs to re-mobilize, break the silence and educate the public
about the breakdown in the non-proliferation regime.

7. More work needs to be done in exploring communications innovations. The potential of the
Internet was emphasized. Young people are growing up oblivious to the continuing dangers of
nuclear weapons. Special efforts must be made to include nuclear weapons issues in school
curriculums.

8. While the issues of nuclear power and nuclear weapons are inextricably linked, participants
preferred to keep public and government attention sharply focussed on the top priority: the
elimination of nuclear weapons. The $8 trillion so far spent on nuclear weapons has deprived
countless people of resources needed for economic and social development, which are the key to
attaining human security. It was suggested that the "right to peace" be more fully explored as a
human rights issue.

9. The Roundtables gave their approval to this Program of Action as suggested by Project
Ploughshares:

a) Advocate immediate steps to reduce nuclear threat

The Canadian government should advocate immediate steps to reduce the nuclear threat,
including removing all nuclear forces from alert and concluding agreements on no-first-use of
nuclear weapons and non-use against non-nuclear states.

b) Support Nuclear Weapons Convention

The Canadian government should adopt nuclear abolition as a real objective, calling on the
nuclear weapons states and other states to begin negotiations on a convention to eliminate all
nuclear weapons.

c) Renounce nuclear umbrella

The Canadian government should renounce Canadian reliance on the "nuclear umbrella" and
bring an end to Canadian support for the nuclear weapons possessed by other countries.

d) Provide leadership in co-operation with like-minded states

Canada should work with like-minded states to press the nuclear abolition agenda. The New
Agenda Coalition and the Middle Powers Initiative offer new ways to work cooperatively.

Report of Discussions with Community Leaders across Canada

A. Background

The Roundtables considered recent important developments in the field of nuclear weapons:

1. New Agenda Coalition (NAC). The Joint Declaration (June 1998) by the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and
Sweden was examined.

The Joint Declaration shared the conclusion expressed by the Canberra Commission: "The
proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used - accidentally or
by decision - defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons
and assurance that they will never be produced again." The eight States said they "are deeply
concerned at the persistent reluctance" of the NWS to negotiate; they called on the governments
of the NWS and the three nuclear-weapons capable States "to commit themselves unequivocally
to the elimination of their respective nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capability and to
agree to start work immediately on the practical steps and negotiations required ..."

2. Middle Powers Initiative. The Middle Powers Initiative (MPI) is a carefully focused and
coordinated campaign, by a group of prestigious international non governmental organizations
(NGOs) working with an organized coalition of key powerful States, designed to encourage rapid
movement to eliminate the threat of nuclear annihilation. "Middle Powers" describes a group of
influential States that have the ability but refuse to develop nuclear weapons, have strong track
records on arms control, have access to the Nuclear Weapon States, have credibility in other
security spheres, and have leaders who can work together. Launched in March 1998, MPI plans
to ensure the success of the most recent and politically viable appeal, the eight-nation New
Agenda Coalition.

MPI is organizing top level delegations to work with leaders of States in eliminating nuclear
weapons. It was noted that an MPI international delegation will visit Canadian Foreign Affairs
Minister Axworthy September 29, 1998.

Believing that an essential task is to generate political will, MPI will rally civil society and key
governments to support this agenda. MPI will develop and execute a coordinated media and
political strategy, utilizing, among other things, sophisticated briefing materials, public
personalities, U.N. resolutions, and high level briefings.

3. India-Pakistan Nuclear Testing. The nuclear weapons tests by India and Pakistan have
exposed the crisis of the present non-proliferation regime. The Roundtables noted Mr.
Axworthy's criticism of these tests and his hope that they would not lead to a new justification
by the NWS and the new proliferators for retention of their nuclear weapons. Mr. Axworthy
said: "Canada will continue to pursue its disarmament agenda with vigour."

While it is appropriate to condemn the governments of India and Pakistan for their nuclear tests,
such gestures are not enough. Canada's proper response to the actions of India and Pakistan -
and perhaps the only means by which we can reverse the escalation of the nuclear arms race in
the Indian sub-continent - would be to join the growing global movement pressing all Nuclear
Weapon States for an unequivocal commitment to commence negotiations leading to the
elimination of nuclear weapons. The Roundtables noted, further, that both India and Pakistan
have formally stated they will join international negotiations leading to a global ban on nuclear
weapons. The Indian record in working for nuclear disarmament over many years had been
rebuffed by the West. The only way to stop India, Pakistan, Israel - and others - from further
developing nuclear weapons is through negotiations leading to a global ban.

4. U.N. Resolution 52/38 O. The Roundtables expressed their puzzlement about the
contradictory aspects of Canada's vote on Resolution 52/38 O at the United Nations in December
1997. The resolution sought to follow up the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion.

Operative Paragraph 1 of the resolution stated:

Underlines once again the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that
there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations
leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international
control;

Canada voted yes on this paragraph.

Operative Paragraph 2 stated:

Calls once again upon all States to immediately fulfil that obligation by commencing
multilateral negotiations in 1998 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons
convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling,
transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination;

Canada voted no on this paragraph and also voted no on the resolution as a whole.

Such voting demonstrated the ambiguity of Canada's policies on nuclear weapons.

5. Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). The formation of a new committee, under
Canadian chairmanship, at the Conference on Disarmament (C.D.) to negotiate a cut-off on
future production of fissile materials was noted. At the same time, the continued disagreements
at the C.D. have rendered the committee virtually inoperable. These disagreements centre
around objections by several non-nuclear States that such negotiations do nothing to disarm the
NWS; while non-proliferation measures are useful, the core of the problem is the nuclear
disarmament of the NWS and there are no multilateral negotiations in this respect.

6. Model Nuclear Weapons Convention. A model Nuclear Weapons Convention, spelling out
the steps to be taken leading to nuclear disarmament, is now a United Nations document. Such a
Convention would prohibit the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and
threat of nuclear weapons. States possessing nuclear weapons would be required to destroy their
arsenals according to a series of coordinated phases.

7. Canadian Church Leaders' 1998 Statement. The letter sent to Prime Minister Chrétien by
the leaders of the main Canadian Christian communities was noted. The Church leaders said:
"The willingness, indeed the intent, to launch a nuclear attack in certain circumstances bespeaks
spiritual and moral bankruptcy. We believe it to be an extraordinary affront to humanity for
nuclear weapons States and their allies, including Canada, to persist in claiming that nuclear
weapons are required for their security." The Church leaders called on Canada to take "a strong,
principled stand against the continued possession of nuclear weapons by any state, affirming
abolition as the central goal of Canadian nuclear weapons policy and adding Canada's voice to
the call to immediately begin negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention."

8. Canadian Public Opinion. Reference was made to the 1998 survey of Canadian public
opinion by the Angus Reid Group Inc., which showed that 75 percent of Canadians believe that
nuclear weapons pose a threat to world security rather than enhancing world security. On the
heels of Canada's leadership in the movement to abolish anti-personnel landmines world wide,
Canadians are almost unanimous in supporting Canadian involvement in global negotiations to
abolish nuclear weapons; 92 percent of Canadians say they support a leadership role for Canada
in global negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons.

9. Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (CNANW). In 1996, CNANW was
established as a network of 15 Canadian peace and disarmament organizations to support the
Abolition 2000 movement. CNANW has co-hosted with the Canadian Centre for Foreign Policy
Development seminars on the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on Nuclear
Weapons and on Practical Steps for Canadian policy developments.

B. Emerging Themes

1. New Agenda Coalition. There was consistent support throughout the Roundtables Tour for
the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), the eight-nation initiative of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico,
New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden. Participants were puzzled why Canada
would not join an initiative that has as its core objective a call to the Nuclear Weapon States
(NWS) to commit themselves unequivocally to the elimination of nuclear weapons and to
immediate practical steps and negotiations required for elimination. Since Canada has given its
assent (and vote at the U.N.) to the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion that nations
are obliged to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, why, then,
would Canada not join NAC? The answer seems to lie in the words "unequivocal" and
"immediate."

The NWS have pledged themselves to "ultimate" nuclear disarmament, but that is seen by many
Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS) as an equivocal commitment. Nuclear Weapons States
claim that only after the achievement of certain undefined security conditions will it be safe to
eliminate nuclear weapons. Actually, the presence and modernization of nuclear weapons
contributes to the de-stabilization of the world; thus the NAC call for immediate action that
would save the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from erosion following the 2000 Review.

Since NATO continues to insist that nuclear weapons are "essential," NATO countries, in their
votes at the U. N., resist resolutions calling for an immediate start to comprehensive negotiations.
When the contrast between NATO policy and the NAC call for negotiations was pointed out at
the Roundtables, participants almost unanimously said that NATO's policy must change so that
it accepts the ICJ Opinion that negotiations for elimination must be concluded.

In the course of the tour, the text for NAC's draft resolution at UNGA 53 became available.
Operative Paragraph 1 states:

Calls upon the Nuclear Weapons States to make, in fulfilment of their obligations under
Article VI of the NPT, an unequivocal commitment to the elimination of their respective
nuclear weapons and without delay to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion
negotiations leading to the elimination of these weapons.

Roundtable participants who had an opportunity to see this draft resolution called on the
Canadian Government to support it.

2. Difficulties with NATO. A general consensus emerged at the Roundtables that Canada's
conflicting policies - support for the ICJ on the one hand, support for NATO's retention of
nuclear weapons on the other - can no longer be sustained. Either Canada supports the abolition
of nuclear weapons and opposes NATO's policy, or Canada continues to bind itself to NATO's
pro-nuclear weapons policy and reneges on its commitment to international law and norms. It
was widely felt that the ambiguity of Canada projecting itself as a peacekeeper (even
peacemaker) yet supporting NATO's nuclear stance undermines the integrity of our overall
foreign policy. Thus, there was virtual unanimity that Canada should, in the company of
like-minded nations, insist that NATO change its nuclear weapons policies. It was further
suggested that Canada work with like-minded nations within NATO to jointly press for a NATO
change of policy.

Some participants argued that Canada should withdraw from NATO if NATO's nuclear policies
are not changed. Others are uncertain about what to do. There are mixed feeling about whether
Canada should be in NATO at all, given the end of the Cold War. Some feel the Alliance still
has a purpose; others do not. But there are signs that a shift in public opinion about NATO is
taking place. Those who have examined the dangers attached to the present nuclear weapons
situation heavily favour getting nuclear weapons out of NATO; if NATO persists in maintaining
nuclear weapons after the current Strategic Concept review is presented to NATO's 1999
Summit Meeting, there are signs that a significant number of Canadians who have heretofore
supported Canada's membership in NATO will call for Canada to get out of NATO.

It is recognized that while the SCFAIT report and the Government may move ahead, fairly
easily, on such measures as de-alerting, a move toward a no-first-use policy and the
commencement of comprehensive negotiations for elimination would require a profound shift in
Canadian foreign policy.

In response to a question put to the participants, there was a strong response that the Government
of Canada should renounce reliance on NATO's "nuclear umbrella" and bring to an end
Canadian support for the nuclear weapons possessed by other NATO countries. Participants
particularly objected to Canada's condemnation of possession of nuclear weapons by non-allied
countries while continuing to treat those same weapons as a useful - even necessary - element of
Canada's defences and those of its allies.

3. India/Pakistan Complications. Roundtable participants saw the nuclear weapons testing by
India and Pakistan as exacerbating an already unstable situation. The testing by the two nations,
though deplorable, pointed up the core of the problem: the retention of nuclear weapons by the
five permanent members of the Security Council and thus the political attractiveness of nuclear
weapons as the currency of power.

During the course of the Roundtables, the leaders of both India and Pakistan spoke at UNGA 53,
pledging to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (an action contingent on the lifting of
economic sanctions on the two countries by Western States). Since India and Pakistan, like the
other NWS, have sufficient fissile material to make hundreds (if not thousands) of nuclear
weapons, signing the CTBT and even the projected fissile cut-off agreement costs them nothing
in their quest to be a nuclear weapons power. Through the acceptance by the West that India and
Pakistan have become de facto nuclear weapons states, the NPT is further undermined. Many
Roundtable participants were of the view that this conundrum would only get worse and the
public more confused about what is actually happening about the crumbling of the
non-proliferation regime. India and Pakistan, it was felt, pointed up the stark choice for the
world community: either there will be a global ban on all nuclear weapons or they will spread to
more nations. The status quo, maintained through the first 25 years of the life of the NPT, is no
longer holding.

4. The Role of the United States. Recognizing that the United States is the key to the success
of the nuclear weapons abolition movement, the Roundtable paid considerable attention to that
country. As Canada's closest neighbour, trading partner and primary defence partner, the U.S.'s
friendship with Canada has always been a central element of Canada's foreign policy. Canada
avoids actions that might offend the U.S. (our objection to the Helms-Burton law on Cuba is a
rare exception). On nuclear weapons matters, the perceived security interests of the U.S.
continue to constrain Canada's policies. It is evident from Canada's support of the ICJ Advisory
Opinion and energetic defence of the NPT that our country, left to itself, would be more clear-cut
in its work for nuclear disarmament. But the very fact that the U.S. Government protested
against SCFAIT's current review of nuclear weapons policies signals the depth of U.S.
determination to retain (and modernize) its nuclear weapons. Presidential Decision Directive 60
confirms that nuclear weapons remain the cornerstone of U.S. military doctrine. Canada, living
under the U.S.-led nuclear umbrella, is virtually forced to support the U.S. in opposing
comprehensive negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Or is it? The question of precisely why the Canadian government feels it has to go against its
own instincts and the wishes of the overwhelming majority in Canada in rejecting U.N.
resolutions calling for comprehensive negotiations was repeatedly raised in the Roundtables.
Participants were puzzled as to why Canada allows itself to be kept in a nuclear straitjacket. In
what precise way would the U.S. retaliate against Canada for taking steps towards the abolition
of nuclear weapons? Would there be punitive trade measures? Would the U.S. stop taking
Canadian astronauts into space? Roundtable participants clearly said they want answers to these
questions so that the public can judge if there are legitimate reasons why Canada must continue
to defer to the U.S. on a matter of such grave humanitarian consequences.

The present state of the U.S. leadership, both of the Administration and Congress, adds to the
questioning of the wisdom on U.S. policies. It was noted that the U.S. opposed the Landmines
Treaty and the development of the new International Criminal Court. Both these instruments are
the first signs of the new security architecture of the post-Cold War era. In both cases, the U.S.
went against the wishes of a majority of nations. The continued internal disputes about how the
overdue U.N. financial assessments will be paid reveal a polarization in the U.S. that inhibits the
clear, progressive leadership required of such a great nation.

The gravity of the nuclear non-proliferation crisis indicates that Canada may soon have to break
with U.S. nuclear policy û if this country is to be true to its principles and the desires of its
people. In this respect, it was also noted at the Roundtables that some (how many?) Canadians
may, in fact, place a higher value on a good relationship with the U.S. than on a more
independent nuclear disarmament policy. One of the tasks, then, is to enhance the public debate
on the issue of disarmament and the impact it has on Canada's overall foreign policy stance. A
broader public debate on Canada's disarmament policy is needed to address this question. In
short, events are forcing the Canadian Government to face up to this question: How prepared are
the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the bureaucracy to withstand U.S. displeasure should Canada
come out squarely for immediate comprehensive negotiations leading to the elimination of
nuclear weapons?

5. Nuclear Weapons and Landmines. Since Canada has had such enormous success in
bringing about a landmines treaty, it was suggested that the nuclear issue should be addressed
with a similar strategy. The "Ottawa Process," which led to the Landmines Treaty, was a fusion
of the advanced wave of civil society and friendly governments working together. Canada - and
notably Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy - took a leading, inspiring role.

There was a sense that landmines activists were able to attach a "stigma" to nations producing
and using landmines. They were highly successful in ascribing a great sense of immorality to
landmines as weapons of war. Could a similar pariah status be attached to the NWS if they
refuse to abolish their nuclear weapons?

Grappling with the question of how to convert the "Ottawa Process" on landmines to an "Ottawa
Process" on nuclear weapons, participants immediately recognized an essential difference:
Landmines are peripheral to the military interests of the big powers, but nuclear weapons are
central to the military doctrines of the NWS. Thus the opposition of the NWS to nuclear
weapons abolition is overpowering compared to their resistance to a landmine ban.

It was at this point that the NAC resurfaced in the Roundtable discussions. It was recognized
that Canada alone could not start an "Ottawa Process" on nuclear weapons abolition. It simply
does not have the weight to go up against the United States, as the key NWS that must be turned
around. But Canada working with an effective coalition of like-minded States could play a
leading role.

Discussion of the role of NAC led to Canada's relationship to the new Middle Powers Initiative
(MPI), a network of seven prominent international NGOs specializing in nuclear disarmament,
that actually was originated by the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. MPI seeks
to develop a coalition of Middle-Power governments, of which NAC is the leading edge, to press
the NWS to break free from their Cold War mindset and move rapidly to a nuclear-weapon free
world.

It was noted that an international delegation from MPI will meet with Foreign Affairs Minister
Axworthy on September 29, 1998, to seek Canadian Government support for the NAC
resolution. At the same time, Project Ploughshares will present this report on the Roundtables to
Mr. Axworthy, giving the views of informed citizens across Canada.

Thus, Roundtable participants overwhelmingly felt that Canada now has a mechanism - the
NAC buttressed by the MPI - at its disposal to work in the good company of like-minded States,
and with a supportive international NGO community, for negotiations leading to the elimination
of nuclear weapons.

6. Canadian Public Opinion. Participants were well aware that an Angus Reid poll in
February 1998 showed that 92 percent of Canadians favour their government taking a leadership
role in global negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons. Two points about this poll were made
strongly:

a) It may be that, asked a direct question, more than 9 out of 10 Canadians favour Canada
working to rid the world of nuclear weapons. But this opinion, if not mute, is scarely heard in
the media. It was noted that Bill Graham, chairman of SCFAIT, said, when Committee hearings
started on the review of Canada's nuclear weapons policies, that on no other subject had the
Committee received as much mail as on nuclear weapons. Yet, in the day-to-day reports in the
media, there is scarce mention of the dilemma of nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan by their
actions have undoubtedly put the nuclear weapons issue back on the front pages, but the ire of
western governments and the attention of Western publics are directed at the two countries while
skating over the real problem: the intransigence of the NWS in maintaining their nuclear
weapons. It was strongly suggested that the NGO community in Canada needs to remobilise,
break the silence, and educate the public about the real problem. Organizations in the Canadian
Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons can facilitate this work.

b) It was asked: Should we be optimistic that 92 percent of Canadians favour Canada taking
leadership for abolition? Or should we be pessimistic, or at least more realistic, and recognize
that the remaining 8 percent of Canadians who support nuclear weapons have the power to shape
government policy? Who are the power-wielders in this 8 percent? What must be done to get
the Government to follow the wishes of the 92 percent rather that the 8?

While not commonly expressed, one other note was struck often enough to merit reporting here.
During the opening presentation at the Roundtables, reference was made to three great moral
evils of the past, slavery, colonialism and apartheid, all of which have been de-legitimized. So
too the "ultimate evil" of nuclear weapons can be de-legitimized and abolished by mounting
global awareness pressing for political action. Some participants observed that in the three
examples given, slavery, colonialism and apartheid, all had required struggle, conflict, civil
disobedience and personal suffering by leaders who sought change. The question was asked:
Would lives have to be put "on the line" to force the political establishment to legislate away the
remaining evil of nuclear weapons?

7. Abstract vs Images. Communications and Education. It was frequently noted at the
Roundtables that a key in building up public support for a Landmines Treaty was the plethora of
pictures of maimed children visited by the late Princess Diana, whose celebrity status attracted
media attention. Fortunately, there are no modern pictures of the result of a nuclear holocaust
(except for the children of Chernobyl, who were exposed to radiation as the result of a meltdown
in a nuclear power reactor, not a nuclear weapons explosion). Today's generation considers
Hiroshima and Nagasaki an historical event; replaying pictures of the human catastrophe there,
while eliciting sympathy, does not evoke the emotional energy required to launch a sustained
protest against nuclear weapons. The problem is viewed in the abstract; the problem has not
happened. Yet the Canberra Commission emphasized: "The proposition that nuclear weapons
can be retained in perpetuity and never used - accidentally or by decision - defies credibility."
In this connection, the Roundtables noted the findings of the New England Journal of Medicine,
which concluded a two-year study on the risks of accidental nuclear with these words: "The risk
of an accidental nuclear attack has increased in recent years, threatening a public health disaster
of unprecedented scale."

It was therefore strongly suggested that more emphasis be put on communications and education
programs to educate the general population and particularly youth about the sheer horror of
nuclear war. Here attention was drawn to the powerful means of communication provided by the
Internet and E-Mail. It was also noted that artists must be encouraged to give expression to the
dangers of a nuclear holocaust. In addition, education programs in schools must be strengthened
(children today learn virtually nothing about this subject in schools). A concerted effort to
increase peace education in provincial curriculums is essential. It was suggested that Project
Ploughshares might attempt to stimulate relevant bodies to develop appropriate curriculum
materials, which could then be submitted to provincial ministries of education. In fact, it was
emphasized that the school system is the perfect place to develop a nuclear abolition culture. It
was noted that past campaigns for environmental protection and non-smoking first gained hold in
the schools and then permeated society.

In reaching out to the mainstream of Canadian society, it was noted that the nuclear weapons
abolition movement must overcome the ambiguity of political speech. In the words of one
chairperson: "We need to speak in human language, in plain talk. We should demystify the
technology. We should denounce the irrationality of nuclear weapons."

8. Nuclear Power and Money Issues. Concern over nuclear power, and its relationship to
nuclear weapons, was raised at the Roundtables. Specifically some participants objected to the
sale and marketing of CANDU technology and reactors abroad by the nuclear industry. The
proposed use of plutonium as commercial reactor fuel was criticized. Many people feel strongly
about the inextricable links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, tracing this concern all
the way back to the uranium used in the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was noted that the Energy Working Group of Science for Peace recently issued a document
calling for the phase-out of nuclear power; it calls on industry, labour and government to discuss
the development of other sources of power to eliminate the need for the use of nuclear reactors,
which carry an inherent risk of danger.

While there was a virtual consensus at the Roundtables that nuclear weapons constitute the
greatest threat to the human condition and the highest political priority must be given to their
elimination, no such concensus exists concerning the use of nuclear power. Some people favour
the use of nuclear energy and recognize that 15 percent of the world's electricity is provided from
this source. Others hold that nuclear enery creates a legacy of serious long-lasting environmental
and health problems, and that it enables proliferation of nuclear weapons.

This divergence of views on the efficacy of nuclear power notwithstanding, there was general
agreement at the Roundtables that groups such as Project Ploughshares must keep the focus of
public, media and political attention, at this critical juncture in history, on the need to negotiate
the end of nuclear weapons.

The importance of reviving and accelerating the process of economic conversion of military
industry was emphasized by several participants. In this connection, world spending on nuclear
weapons, $8 trillion to date, was severely criticized. The United States alone has spent $5.8
trillion on nuclear weapons, the equivalent of $1000 for every human being on the planet. The
appalling waste of resources, given the universal need for economic and social development, was
seen as an indication of moral bankruptcy. It was suggested that a new focus on public attention
be put on the human right to peace, which would directly benefit the international development
agenda and hence shore up human security everywhere.

C. Actions Taken

1. Participants considered this list of Suggested Individual Actions:

1. Write to Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to tell him you support
   vigorous action by the Canadian government to promote the abolition of nuclear
   weapons.
   
2. Secure appointments with your local Members of Parliament at their constituency
   offices and ask them to call on the government to commit itself to vigorous Canadian
   action in support of nuclear abolition.
   
3. Write a short letter to your newspaper drawing attention to the nuclear weapons issue and the work of the member organizations of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
   
4. Ask local authorities, city councils, and individual mayors to declare their support for
   nuclear weapons abolition.
   
5. Organize a seminar or workshop in your community on the issue of the continuing
   danger of nuclear weapons - and what can be done about it.
   
6. Support one or more of the member organizations of the Canadian Network to
   Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
   
7. Invite eight to ten people of different backgrounds to your home for an evening of
   discussion. Start with a leading question: "Why do we still have nuclear weapons?" The
   discussion will be interesting.
   
8. Find out what your children are being taught - if anything - about the status of
   nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War world.

2. Many participants said they would write to Bill Graham, M.P., Chairman of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, to encourage the Committee to produce a
strong report recommending Canada join the New Agenda Coalition.

3. Several participants said they would make presentations to municipal councils seeking
passage of nuclear weapons abolition resolutions. Through the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, "Abolition 2000" support zones could be set up and neighbouring municipalities
encouraged to get involved.

4. All-party resolutions calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons will be introduced in certain
legislatures.

5. It was suggested that the YWCA's Week Without Violence in October could be expanded to
include a focus on international peace and a commitment to nuclear disarmament.

6. Nuclear disarmament as a prerequisite for world peace could become a theme for
Remembrance Day celebration: "Our Veterans didn't save us for nuclear annihilation."

7. High School model U.N. classes will be organized. Delegations of students will be helped to
attend the 1999 Hague Appeal for Peace World Conference.

8. Roundtable representatives in Peterborough will draw up a petition to be sent to the House of
Commons through Peter Adams, M.P. The petition will include these recommendations:

• Immediate de-alerting of all nuclear devices.
• Canada should join the New Agenda Coalition.
• Canada must take a stand with NATO. NATO's position that nuclear weapons are still
  a useful defence is wrong.
• Make nuclear abolition a top priority in foreign policy.
• Give additional financial support to Russia to achieve their disarmament commitments.

9. Local M.P.'s should be approached, individually and checked off for support. Caucus
pressure may cause wavering, so local lobbying by constituents must be substantial. For
example, Saskatoon's M.P.'s have been approached and all indicated support.

10. Service Clubs and the Rotary were encouraged to help educate M.P.'s. Abolition supporters
should speak with them.

Appendix A

Voices of Canadians

 You cannot separate nuclear weapons abolition from civilian use of nuclear energy.
-Scientist

I'm not confident that there will be a great change in US policy on nuclear weapons.
-Teacher

We shouldn't do things just to get media attention. We should be trying to change government policies.
-Activist

India and Pakistan make you wonder how many other nations have nuclear weapons in the
closet.
-Labour Leader

As long as Canada is in NATO, it runs our foreign policy. We should get out of NATO.
-Veteran

Unless people see how the issue impacts on them, they don't act.
-Activist

Letters do have an impact on the political system. It's even better if you write a second letter.
-City Councillor

I'm an average citizen. I have other priorities. What's the hook for nuclear weapons? You need to get to the guts of the issue.
-School Board Member

We're not struggling enough in the nuclear abolition movement.
-Women's Leader

We went from 'nuclear winter' in the 1960s to 'nuclear summer holiday' in the 1990s.
-Journalist

We single out the US for its nuclear weapons. What about Britain and France?
-Teacher

Nine-two percent of Canadians may favour nuclear weapons elimination. It's the other 8 percent we should be worrying about.
-Member of Parliament

The New Agenda Coalition provides good company for Canada to move forward with.
-Member of Legislature

If nuclear weapons are retained, they will be used sometime.
-Military Leader

What will replace nuclear weapons for future security?
-Student Union President

Nuclear weapons are the end product in a spiritually bankrupt society.
-Minister

Canadians might not be prepared to pay the price of challenging the US on nuclear weapons.
-Editor

Arms control and disarmament lost out in the downsizing of government. There's no bench
strength in the Department of Foreign Affairs on this subject.
-Former Foreign Service Officer

The US State Department is going to let India and Pakistan off the hook for their testing because the US wants to keep nuclear weapons themselves.
-University Professor

We must find new images to communicate the nuclear weapons problem. In India, a group
floated a huge balloon calling for nuclear disarmament over the Taj Mahal.
-Media Consultant

Why don't we promote public events on every university campus in Canada?
-University Student

How many around this table have actually been in an MP's constituency office? (Answer: two-thirds.)
-Chairman of a Roundtable

If I have to hear Doug Roche on nuclear disarmament one more time, I'm going to pack it in.  How can he keep his enthusiasm so high for so long? Doug Roche can be sure he has the NGO community behind him.
-Chairman of a Roundtable

Nuclear weapons are not at the centre of my interest. But I am here today to learn.
-Assistant to Member of the Legislature

It's hard to come to these meetings. We may not see the results of our efforts for years. The
uclear weapon problem is more than the heart can hold.
-Community Affairs Coordinator

Canada should take an activist role in NATO for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
-University Professor

Having city councils pass a resolution in support of nuclear weapons abolition is a constructive approach.
-City Councillor

I'm going to suggest to Rotary International that we get behind the nuclear weapon abolition campaign.
-Architect

We're overwhelmed with issues. People see this as just another issue. Nuclear abolition needs a public relations job.
-Environmentalist

The elimination of nuclear weapons and the elimination of nuclear power are intertwined. They must be approached together.
-Environmentalist

I don't know what Canadian policy on nuclear weapons is. Why is it not clarified?
-Nurse

If Canada is so scared of retaliation by the United States against our speaking out, what is it exactly that we are afraid of?
-Veteran

I find polite indifference to this subject among my university students.
-University Professor

Can we find a leader who will stake his political future on nuclear abolition?
-Veteran

Maybe this is an interesting subject, but it's far down on my list of priorities.
-Person not attending who sent a message

 Let there be a strong 'No' to nuclear weapons for all time. We have nothing to gain from them.
-Nagasaki Survivor

I think we are in denial about nuclear weapons. It's just too big a subject for us.
-Church Minister

I thought things were moving forward until I came to this Roundtable. Now I realize they are not.  I want Canada to stop being ambiguous in its policies because there is nothing ambiguous about nuclear weapons.
-Former Mayor

I certainly will do something in my personal life to advance the abolition of nuclear weapons.
-Catholic Nun

Appendix B

Roundtable Summary

Senator Douglas Roche, O.C.

Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament from 1984 to 1989 and Member of Parliament from
1972 to 1984, Douglas Roche is currently Visiting Professor at the University of Alberta, which awarded him an Honourary Doctor of Laws in 1986. He was appointed to the Senate in September, 1998. Senator Roche was elected Chairman of the United Nations Disarmament Committee at the 43rd General Assembly in 1988. An Officer of the Order of Canada, he was Chairman of the Canadian Committee for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations. He is
currently Chairman of Canadian Pugwash and the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons. Senator Roche's most recent book is The Ultimate Evil: The Fight to Ban Nuclear Weapons.

Project Ploughshares

Project Ploughshares is a Canadian peace and disarmament organization sponsored by the
Canadian Council of Churches and supported by Canadian religious and civic organizations and thousands of individuals. It publishes The Ploughshares Monitor (quarterly) and the Armed Conflicts Report (annual). Donations to Project Ploughshares are tax creditable. All donors of $35 or more receive the Monitor.

Project Ploughshares
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
Conrad Grebel College
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G6
Tel: (519) 888-6541
Fax: (519) 885-0806
Email: plough@ploughshares.ca
Web: http://www.ploughshares.ca

Aknowledgements

 Project Ploughshares wishes to thank the Anti-Nuclear War Fund, The Simons Foundation, and the Eco-Justice Committee of the Anglican Church of Canada for grants that made this series of consultations possible. In addition, we greatly appreciate the support provided by Video Works Dub and Transfer Services (Waterloo, Ontario) in the editing and production of the video that was shown at the roundtables. We also wish to thank the individuals and groups across Canada who worked on the local organizing committees for the sessions: Physicians for Global Survival (Victoria); Lawyers for Social Responsibility (Victoria); End the Arms Race (Vancouver); Project Ploughshares Calgary; Project Ploughshares Saskatoon; Veterans Against Nuclear Arms (Saskatoon); Seniors for Peace (Saskatoon); Project Peacemakers (Winnipeg); Project Ploughshares Edmonton; Science for Peace (Toronto); Physicians for Global Survival (Kingston); Ploughshares Kawartha (Peterborough); London Cross Cultural Learner Centre; Physicians for Global Survival (Kitchener-Waterloo); RÚseau du Grand MontrÚal pour la paix; Ploughshares Fredericton; Ann Sherman (Charlottetown); Veterans Against Nuclear Arms (Halifax); Ploughshares St. John's

Project Ploughshares Working Papers are published to contribute to public awareness and debate of issues of disarmament and development. The views expressed and proposals made in these papers should not be taken as necessarily reflecting the official policy of Project Ploughshares.