Fiddling While Rome Burns: Institutional and Political Impediments to Meeting the
Environmental Challenges of the 21st Century
James Bruce, Pat Mooney
Our thanks must go first to the speakers and panelists who freely gave their time and effort to making the Conference a success.
The Group is most grateful to all those who helped to organize and run the conference, which this year drew 66 people, of whom 55 were members, to Econiche Lodge.
He chaired the Canadian Cabinet committees on Foreign and Defence Policy, Security and Intelligence, the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. , and the constitutional renewal process that led to the Charlottetown Accord. Internationally, he was the first chairman of the Commonwealth Committee of Foreign Ministers on Southern Africa, which led the Commonwealth campaign against apartheid, chaired the first-ever joint meeting of members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and participated actively in eight G-8 (or G-7) Economic Summits. At his direction, Canada assumed its full role and responsibilities in the Organization of American States, recognized the Palestinian right to self-determination, and maintained Overseas Development Assistance contributions at their highest levels in recent history.
Mr. Clark was a founding board member of the Pacific Council on International Policy and, before returning to active politics in 1998, served on the boards of international NGOs and Canadian and international companies. He has been a visiting scholar at the University of California , Berkeley , and American University in Washington , DC , and was a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in 2004. Mr. Clark is a member of the Council of Presidents and Prime Ministers of the Americas , and served as Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Cyprus .
He is president of Joe Clark and Associates, an international consulting firm based in Canada , and active in Asia and Africa . He is author of the book Canada: A Nation Too Good To Lose .
Mr. Clark is a Companion of the Order of Canada , a member of the Alberta Order of Excellence and l'Ordre de la Pleiades, and has been awarded several honourary degrees. He was the first recipient of the Vimy Award. Joe Clark is married to the Canadian author and lawyer Maureen McTeer, who specializes in law and public policy respecting health, science, and reproductive technologies. Their home is in Ottawa
Together with Cary Fowler and Hope Shand, Pat Mooney began working on the "seeds" issue in 1977. In 1984, the three co-founded RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International), whose name was changed to ETC Group (pronounced "etcetera" group) in 2001. ETC Group is a small international CSO addressing the impact of new technologies on rural communities. ETC has offices in Canada , the United States , Mexico , and the UK ; and works closely with CSO partners around the world.
Editor's note: The above biographical summary was current as of the conference daters. Mr. Fisher was appointed as President and CEO for UNICEF Canada in November, 2005
He is a former official in Canada 's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, where he specialized in trade policy and trade negotiations. He was involved in the Canada-US Free Trade Negotiations, the North American Free Trade Negotiations and various GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), textile, and commodity negotiations. He was founding director of Carleton's Centre for Trade Policy and Law and stepped down in September 1996 after a second term as director.
He holds an MA from the University of Toronto and is the author, editor, or co-editor of more than a dozen books and numerous articles and chapters in books on international trade issues. Professor Hart is married with two grown children and is active in church and community affairs, including as an elder of the Presbyterian Church and a member of the Ottawa presbytery.
She has worked closely with the broader UN community, NGOs, labour, governments and the private sector to convene numerous Policy Dialogues, including fora focused on the Private Sector's Involvement in Zones of Conflict, Sustainable Development, Supply Chain Management and Business Participation in the Fight Against HIV/AIDS. Ms. Powell is currently working on several projects, including one that supports the UN's efforts to implement the principles of the Compact into its own procurement, facilities managements and pension fund operations. She is also coordinating the development of a UN publication that focuses on partnerships between the UN and business across the UN system. In addition, in the lead-up to the UN's high-level Summit in September, Ms. Powell has been involved in various initiatives that showcase the important role the private sector can play in contributing to development and the Millennium Development Goals. Ms. Powell is also responsible for supporting the development of the Global Compact in South Asia and in Canada and she is part of the team organizing the UN Global Compact China Summit, which will take place in November 2005 in Shanghai .
Prior to joining the Global Compact Office Ms. Powell worked as a Junior Professional Consultant in the Speechwriting Unit of the Executive Office of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In this role, she composed brief messages and short articles on behalf of the Secretary-General.
A graduate of the London School of Economics, where she earned a Masters degree in International Relations, Ms. Powell also holds a bachelors degree in Political Science from Queen's University , Canada .
Both Jean Chretien and I came to parliament as domestic politicians. What drew us was not international issues, but national, in particular, national unity and identity. In my own view, those remain the issues on which Canada will stand or fail.
So I am interested - as you all are - in what Canada can do in the world, and in what international engagement can do for Canada .
Some commentators warn that we should not exaggerate Canada 's influence. I agree that we should not be unrealistic, but I believe strongly that we need to cultivate a belief - in that sense sustain a myth - that Canada has a large role to play internationally and, indeed, that Canadians have an international vocation.
This country has always been an act of will. It didn't come together naturally, doesn't stay together easily. Confederation was an act of will; medicare was an act of will, equalization was an act of will. So was the Charter of Rights. So was free trade.
One reality about our country is that we need to prove our worth to our parts. We need those acts of will, or we become smaller than our whole. We are a wealthy, lucky country, and increasingly self-absorbed. It is easy to grow apart. We should therefore look towards issues and aspirations that unite divides across Canadians. Foreign policy in that respect is a real source of opportunity. A source of identity.
As foreign minister, I was often the one making the case for foreign policy. Frequently, the myth mattered as much as the matters of my case for increased resources to foreign initiatives.
Part of what's gone wrong in Canadian foreign policy making is that we haven't nourished Canada 's international vocation. Canada 's role went south without a focus, and has subsequently become too narrowly North American. In the process, we didn't focus enough on the international vocation that makes us a distinct society within North America , and it's what defines us in the world. If that vocation isn't mobilized, Canada will become steadily more marginal in every aspect of international affairs, including trade and economics. Despite popular belief and our membership in the G8, Canada has always had relatively less influence in international economic policy than we had in politics and diplomacy. Economic power reflects size; diplomacy depends on imagination, and agility, and reputation. Canada 's political strengths have more currency again, if we choose to use them, including in the United States .
For a long time, Canadians were vaguely proud of our role in the world, but didn't pay much attention to it, nor calculate its costs and benefits. It was simply a part of who we were. Then ‘who we were' began to change.
Sources of our demography began to shift from Europe to Asia . A serious questioning began of about the status quo of federalism. First in Quebec , but gradually in Western Canada, and now in Ontario - and, of course, even more fundamentally among aboriginal people, whose rights pre-date our Federation.
Urbanization brought new priorities to Canadian policy - the environment, equality issues, science policy, multiculturalism. Then, with a rush, the Cold War ended and brought what the Prime Minister calls ‘transformative change'. The ‘old days' are over. Gone were the days when the ‘elite' enjoyed an unusual authority to direct Canada 's policy in the world. They were an elite in an age when that phrase was not pejorative, and they enjoyed an unusual authority to shape Canada 's response to the unusual opportunities that arose in the post-war world. They were also largely untroubled by parliament and the media. It was a very different time and not good preparation for today's political climate, which is much more populist, and much more competitive.
These old elite had no experience in fighting a domestic constituency or fighting bureaucratic battles, yet they were now operating in a world where diplomacy was replaced by trade and our superpower neighbour was acting with overwhelming omnipotence.
After the Cold War, t he dominant agenda was no longer defence against an armed and dangerous enemy. And it did not become poverty, or development, or human rights. Instead it was trade and economic growth. Governments chose to believe that trade would cure poverty, that market models would work everywhere.
• Diplomacy has become more important again, as we're beginning to understand the limits to the use of force and the market forces that were supposed to displace the inequalities at the root of violence;
• There are critical and influential roles that Canada can play if we have the will and the resources to play them.
There was a generation of parliamentarians to whom one didn't have to make the case for defence spending. When I came into parliament in 1972 as a Minister interested in agricultural issues, it was clear that most MPs and officials had some experience that was recent and relatively current with a farm. They'd been on one; they knew beef wasn't born in a package, and therefore had a better understanding of the importance of the beef and dairy industry. People interested in Defence didn't have to make their case, and those in agriculture didn't have to do so either . But groups like that can no longer assume they have an automatic constituency; they have to earn support among MPs and officials who share little of their personal experience. It is imperative that people interested in foreign policy make their case as strongly as possible.
When Canada 's policies have been most effective in the world, it's been due to the pursuit of two main priorities at the same time: stay as close as we can with United States , and work as hard as we can on maintaining an innovative and independent role in the world. Those are not opposite positions: they are the two sides of the Canadian coin. Our access to Washington added clout to our actions elsewhere, and our reputation in the developing world and the respect we enjoy in the multilateral community are assets that the U.S. cannot always command herself.
Much of the recent debate has been about our relationship with United States : wood, beef, and keeping our borders open. It's an important debate to be having, but far too narrow.
What an irony it would be if we bought in to the American model just as it was coming apart at home, and losing its allure and authority in the world. And at a time when the model previously known as Canadian was proving itself more suitable to the diverse world that is emerging.
The goals guiding Canadian Foreign Policy towards the United States since 9/11 have been overwhelmingly security and economics. Let's assume for a moment that there's more to a partnership than making money and feeling safe. Let's see what more there is to a relationship amongst two democratic, well educated, wealthy, modern states which have both made legal commitments to themselves and to the world to respect human rights.
The U.S. , at its best, incarnates imagination, generosity, internationalism and the ability to get things done: many things that we admire. But we are different countries, and there are growing indicators of what makes us different. In this context, however, two different successful communities can still pursue goals upon which they strongly agree.
We're both immigrant nations, and changing sources of immigration are having an irrevocable impact on our cultures. U.S. in-migration comes disproportionately from Latin America, while Canadian in-migration comes disproportionately from Asia . In the decade ending in 2001, not a single Latin American country was among the top ten sources of Canadian immigration. Of Americans who define themselves as foreign born, 52% of Americans identify as from Latin America, and 26.3% from Asia .
In 2001-2002, both countries asked a national census question: “were you born in this country?” In the United States , 11.1% were foreign born, and in Canada it was 18.4%. This is a substantial difference. (There could be under-reporting in the U.S. by illegal aliens, but this would not explain the significant difference).
In addition, authors of attitudinal studies argue that a clear set of Canadian values is emerging which differentiates Canada from the United States . Michael Adams, the president of Environics, portrays Canadians as, among other things, less deferential to authority, more drawn to idealism, more open to difference.
In a recent test of young leaders in Alberta , results showed that their generation is more tolerant of diversity, immigration, gay rights, etc, than their parents are. When asked about their primary locus of identity, that is Albertan, Canadian or otherwise, the overwhelming majority identified as Calgarians first and Canadians second. One said Westerner; none said Albertan.
If it is true that this difference in attitudes in Canada (vs. the U.S. ) is growing, how can those attitudes be translated into policy? How do we use them to build a constituency for an activist foreign policy in Canada ? We have to go out and build one.
For the sake of argument, if health care and internationalism both represent Canadian values, why is health always an election issue and foreign policy isn't? Would the illegal drugs that would flow into Canada if Haiti becomes a fully failed state not affect Canadians? What about violence in the Middle East ? Softwood lumber? Environmental degradation? Are lineups in hospitals more threatening to Canadians than lineups at the border? “The Canadian Taxpayers Association has been more effective at rallying its troops than the CIIA.”
Every Canadian organization interested in international affairs is bad at raising money, so we tell ourselves that Canadians with cash just aren't interested. Well, tell that to the Woodrow Wilson Centre. They held three major fundraising dinners in Canada , the first of which was in Toronto and netted C$400,000. The second in Calgary , netted C$600,000, the third, again in Toronto , raised C$550,000. That is net new money for an international organization, raised in Canada from the very Canadians whom we have told ourselves will not support FOCAL or the CIIA or the Group of 78.
Sure, the Woodrow Wilson Centre went to corporations and played off their prestige in Washington , etc, but let's focus not on how they raised the money and sparked the interest, but where they did it: in a backyard we do not deign to visit at a time when international issues are as salient as domestic ones. Why don't Canadian organizations target corporations before the Americans do?
Young people are interested in the environment, in equality issues...but not in voting. Why not encourage them to address their concerns in the context of foreign policy?
The simple reality is that building such constituencies is the only way we're going to get the budgets back for international development and diplomacy, and probably for defence. And it is one of the critical ways to build back that pride in Canada that is essential to the strength of our community.
Of course, there are other significant countries in the world with a reputation for concerted action in the developing world, also free of any colonial or imperial taint - the Nordics, the Irish, the Dutch, the Australians, and others.
But they aren't members of the G8, or next door to the world's superpower, or as actively engaged internationally and experienced in drawing diversity together as we are. None is as diverse in its demography nor as experienced, at home, in drawing diversity together.
We have a wealth of skills and experience that should be used, but isn't being used. We have the assets we need to build our role rather than let domestic issues outweigh our international agenda. It matters materially. The question is, are we willing to try?
What happened after the ODA cuts? If there is some hope of resources coming down the pipe, people use their creative juices and things begin to flow. However, there have also been major changes in definition and delivery of ODA. Many old models are being replaced. This issue was raised in Ghana at a meeting I attended, and the debate showed serious skepticism about the effectiveness of ODA and Western support for the New Partnership for Africa 's Development (NEPAD). One of the worst things that could happen would be that if NEPAD, with such extraordinary characteristics, were to fail, it would be very, very difficult to get anything happening afterwards. Canada 's working to prevent that failure.
An immense amount of money is being directed, often highly productively, through remittances back to countries of origin. One argument says the strength of developed countries makes it more possible for people from developing countries to move there and send remittances.
As a seasoned politician, how do you get the Canadian population mobilized? If we lowered the voting age to 18, would it make a difference? At the UN I see a lot of young Canadians who are full of idealism and energy, yet who are very realistic at the same time. They don't expect things to be easy and have very high levels of tolerance. I'm so proud of them, but how do we get the public to move?
With regards to policy, we should identify those potential constituencies and go out there and get them moving. I work on the Board of FOCAL, and have been trying to get them to hold a meeting outside Ottawa . If they don't take their case to Calgary or elsewhere, they're not going to get the widespread support they need. Saying we can't reach out is the wrong way to approach it.
Would we be better off if there were more active participation in foreign policy issues in Canada ? Yes, as it would better frame the decisions that are being made. We'd be in a better position to have that result not by applying an American model, but by looking at the nature and capacities of Canadian communities and how we draw them out.
Those who are most critical of the UN have no concept of what the world would be like if it were not there. It is not self evident that there should be such an emphasis on multilateralism. Some multinational organizations should be closed down, or at the very least modified. The reduction of funding for international activities has meant that our commitment to multilateral organizations has declined. Our influence will only be strong if we keep earning it. We have unusual credentials and should be exercising them.
I reiterate that one of the Canadian public policy institutes should look at fundraising. I'm quite interested in the attitude of the business community. To get these businesses to focus on regions they're not active in is very difficult. Someone needs to take a look at what kind of approach can be made to these types of communities. Thabo Mbeki wanted private meetings with major Canadians banks to discuss the lack of investment in South Africa and Africa generally. The banks agreed to meet him but said there's no way such a meeting would cause them to change their policies. What can be done to encourage a more constructive interest in international affairs by business leaders? Canadian businesses are world leaders in practicing good corporate social policy - how do we tap into that?
I am not proposing an American model, but if something works in the U.S. , we shouldn't walk away from it because it comes from the U.S. . We should look at how they use the American private sector both poorly and well, to see what they do and learn how to apply it.
This harks back to the Malthusian cry that we heard centuries ago, when Rev. Malthus argued that population was increasing exponentially compared to the production of food, and it could only be brought into equilibrium by pestilence and famine. Malthus was eventually proven wrong because food production increased considerably. In fact, food production has tripled since 1970 while population only doubled during the same period This Malthusian syndrome manifested itself in the ‘70s, when oil prices jumped to the price equivalent of $80 a barrel (we have cheap oil prices relative to the ‘70s). Here we go again, responding like Pavlovian dogs to dire prognostications during a crisis.
One redeeming feature of the discussion was that Wright put his finger on leadership. When leaders get obsessed in an ego-maniacal way with building great monuments, the certain outcome is the demise of the civilization. But leadership relates to systemic arrangements that prevail; it was interesting last night to hear Joe Clark comment that in Canada —as well as in the U.S. —we don't have leadership in the main parties capable of tackling the challenges.
We must identify not only the problem but also identify what we should DO about it. Is it a serious problem or is it a crisis? A crisis is a problem that requires a change to the system, while a serious problem only requires small modifications to the current system.
The UN meeting on global problems indicated that we are creeping out of the Westphalian system to a more integrated system. The environment was the casualty of the meeting. After all the preparation in the months leading up to the UN meeting, John Bolton came in with hundreds of amendments. What do we do with a hegemon that looks inward and drags its feet? It wasn't so when Britain was the world's hegemon. The U.S. sucks in capital rather than investing it abroad because they don't save.
1) To what extent is this a Malthusian prognostication? Fortune magazine in 1970 predicted a global cooling trend—an impending Ice Age. I hope this panel will illuminate to what extent we as humans are contributing to it. If we only account for 5%, can we reduce our contribution by 50% instead of 20% as called for in Kyoto ? And what does this imply in regulatory constraints on society or special motivations to induce people? What transformations arise from changes of this magnitude?
2) What are the institutional implications? When we read the paper and see the environment minister look for voluntary constraints from the automobile industry rather than legislating restrictions, one must ask “are the powers that be so beholden to their financial contributors that they cannot act in the public interest.
A while back, National Geographic published a whole issue on climate change. One of the graphs shows the increase of CO 2 in the atmosphere along with the trends of the increase of temperatures in the northern hemisphere. This correlation isn't proof, but if we look over the long term (400,000 years) based on ice samples in Antarctica , there was never such a concentration of methane and CO 2 in the atmosphere as now. The sinks can't handle this as they have in the past. 280 parts per million CO 2 was high in pre-industrial times; now we're at 380 ppm and we might go as high as 1100 ppm by 2100. It's hard to imagine how climate will respond.
River flows have also changed (decreased flow mostly in the south and increased flows mostly in the north). With a declining flow on most of the trans-boundary waters in Canada between 1976 and 1996, we have to look at our rigid resource sharing agreements with the US because things are changing quickly. Neither country is keeping all its obligations to the other on some rivers because flow in some rivers is too low.
At the same time we have seen more flash floods on small streams, increasing soil erosion, washing agricultural pollutants into the water ecosystem, road washouts and over taxing of drainage systems. In Oshawa , for example, there has been an increase in the intensity and frequency of rainstorms in the past 30 years. 50 mm of rain or more in an hour used to occur only once in every 31 years, while it now occurs every 9 years on average. Both the Canadian and UK climate models indicate that by the end of the century, days with light or moderate rainfalls will not change much, but days with very heavy falls will go up markedly. More intense rains are being observed in many locations all over the world. In the northern hemisphere, we can also expect that the frequency of weak snow storms will decrease but the high intensity storms will increase. This has been confirmed in several papers that have just been published – the intensity has been going up.
Moreover, as the temperature goes up, the number of lightning strikes and forest fires (two-thirds of which are caused by lightning) goes up—and insurance costs as well. Canada has experienced a rapid rise in numbers of climate and weather related disasters while geophysical disasters remained steady in number. The Insurance Bureau of Canada attributes their rising losses and those of governments and individuals to three things: the changing climate, aging infrastructure, and more people and property at risk.
Oceans too are warming, or at least the surface layers down to 300 metres. As the water heats, it expands and raises sea levels. Warmer temperatures also nurture typhoons, cyclones and hurricanes. For example, Hurricane Juan in 2003 was a full-blown hurricane right up until it hit Nova Scotia —very rare, normally it would peter out into a strong rainstorm. The higher sea temperatures also account for why Hurricane Katrina was so strong when it hit New Orleans so tragically.
Loss Potential in Future Hurricanes |
Storm |
Class |
Year |
Estimated 1990 Insured Losses (000's) |
Estimated 1990 Insured Losses if Maximum Wind Speed Increases by |
5% |
10% |
15% |
Hugo |
4 |
1990 |
$3,658,887 |
$4,902,785
(34%) |
$6,514,172
(78%) |
$8,542,428
(133%) |
Alicia |
3 |
1983 |
$2,435,589 |
$3,382,775
(29%) |
$4,312,884
(77%) |
$5,685.853
(133%) |
Camilla |
5 |
1969 |
$3,086,201 |
$4,129,733
(34%) |
$5,438,332
(76%) |
$7,095,008
(138%) |
Source: Clark , 1997 |
Models suggest that hurricanes could increase in intensity by about 10% as the oceans warm. Insurers calculate this would mean a 76 to 78% increase in damages in such storms.
Now where do these greenhouse gases come from that are increasing rapidly in the global atmosphere? - mainly from burning of fossil fuels. Energy use by regions show that North Americans are energy hogs and contribute far more than their fair share of the global total using 7.8 tonnes of oil-equiv/year/person. Africans use 0.3, South America 0.9, China 0.8, and Southeast Asia 0.5 – all 2003 data. The U.S. alone accounts for ¼ of global CO 2 emissions.
Per capita CO 2 emissions are inversely proportional to per capita income; people with annual incomes less than $9,000 contribute very little to global emissions. It is the wealthy who use and overuse fossil fuels and it was very logical that the wealthy countries were required to reduce emissions first under the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997 to put real commitments into the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). That Convention called on the world to stabilize concentrations of GHGs at a level that would prevent “dangerous interference with the climate system”. It was signed and ratified by almost all countries including the U.S. , but contained no real commitments.
Stabilization of concentrations at 1990 levels requires deep cuts in emissions and a major restructuring of the world's energy economy. People in our Arctic and on many low-lying islands think that we have already reached “dangerous” levels. The Kyoto Protocol called for a mere 6% reduction and that only for rich developed countries, a very limited first step.
This has proven difficult for Canada , mainly because we have been painfully slow to act and have allowed emissions to rise from 600 mT (megatonnes) in 1990 to 740 mT in 2003, 600 mT of which is from energy extraction and use. So instead of facing a 6% reduction, because of past inaction since 1992, we now face a formidable 29% reduction.
Why have our emissions risen so rapidly since 1990? It is primarily due to two factors – increased use of energy to extract and ship oil and gas, and the rapid growth in use of SUV's and light trucks.
But we need not have had such a sorry record. Our tax, subsidy and financial signals have all contributed to our problem. In Canada , the federal government gave tax breaks and other benefits to oil sands projects of $1.2 billion from 1996 to 2002. At the same time, Sweden , which is meeting its Kyoto target, changed its tax structure in 1990, in a revenue neutral way, to tax carbon emissions and reduce personal income tax by a like amount. Canada is so energy wasteful that we now use 50% more energy per unit of production than does Sweden . This is both climate folly and economic folly.
Pat Mooney : I'm not an environmentalist. My background has always been from an international development stand-point—a matter of justice rather than environment. Much of my work has dealt with how new technologies affect farmers and the whole world. But I agree with everything Jim presented; the problem is real and we have to address it. I'm as frightened about the solution as I am about the problem. Earlier this year six countries came together to say that they had an alternative to Kyoto ( U.S. , India , Australia , South Korea , Japan and China ). These are not heroes of environmental action. The solution was to create new technologies without having to change our living standards.
They are looking at sequestering carbon in the earth's crust and geo-engineering (i.e., massively restructuring the environment around us). We can spread iron pellets on the ocean to reduce global warming, repair the ozone layer, and build more nuclear power plants around the world to solve the energy problem. These ideas have been around for decades, but now they are gaining new currency. These are shocking experiments seeking to solve the problems so that we don't have to change our standard of living. The U.S. stopped experiments spreading iron pellets in the Antarctic Ocean (to decrease temperatures by increasing plankton) because they worked too well; they were on the verge of creating a new Ice Age. This kind of experimentation is simply alarming. The U.S. has so much faith in technology that will actually work to help solve problems, but it makes everyone else very, very nervous.
Technology is now being touted as the answer for the environment; food, water, millennium goals, etc. It is the concept of Liberation theology: How do we get social justice in this world? How do we use technology as the solution to poverty? We can make poverty history by making poverty chemistry. Everyone is talking about it now. Jeffrey Sachs features technology very strongly in his new book. This is substituted for the hard social policy decisions of evaluating our lifestyle and how inappropriate it is.
In the PMO's science advisory office, there are three people studying converging technologies (a.k.a. nanotechnology). The sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) converge at the level of atoms and molecules. The U.S. and EU are already focusing on this, so Canada is trying to catch up. The goal is to advance human performance, but not necessarily human well-being. This is where the major dollars are being invested in research. The Chinese are doing it too. There is a technology race.
At all the meetings, this technology convergence is touted as the solution to climate change—in manufacturing, in energy consumption, etc. It is already a multi-billion dollar project; there is now more money being spent on technological convergence than on the Manhattan and Apollo projects combined. The market for nanotechnology will have about 20% of the world market by 2015. With nanotechnology, we multiply the number of colours we have on the artist's painting palette (i.e. we're not constrained by the current characteristics of the periodic table of elements). For example, at the nano-level, chalk is 100 times stronger than steel and six times lighter. Raw materials don't exist anymore, because you can make anything out of anything atom by atom, which has resource implications for various countries. One could conceivably construct hamburgers or tables atom-by-atom. There would be no more need for mining, everything could be recycled, energy costs would be lowered, transport costs would be lowered. But there are also enormous risks. This is the major area of research of most governments around the world, but there is no regulation. We don't know the health risks of allowing regulations that are geared for substances of greater size to be applied to the same substances in smaller size (i.e. the nano-level). The EU has proposed a code of conduct on the use of nanotechnology, and the U.S. didn't throw it out right away.
Because of the high risk of nanotechnology, industry wants more government support and protection, i.e., guarantees to shareholders in order to carry on with dangerous research. Patents are now being granted for stuff that is used across the spectrum of products (pharmaceuticals, food, computers), but the regulatory structure is just emerging. Whoever gets the fundamental patents can do just about whatever they want—even patenting elements! Two have already been granted. Carbon nano-wires Inc. now has a virtual monopoly on the use of carbon.
The Bush Administration is now talking about using nanotechnology to solve climate change. The White House had meetings two years ago to discuss blowing zinc into stratosphere in order to deflect sunlight as a means of controlling temperatures. These kinds of tech advances are being considered as people realize that Kyoto may not be feasible, but what unstudied and potentially irreversible effects could this alternative route have on the environment?
PANEL 1 - Q & A
Bill Ryan : Who is going to control all of this? Does this constitute a drastic shift in power to Trans-National Corporations (TNCs)?
PM: The UN has been kept out of the discussion almost completely. The UN University just did an alarmist study on exactly this issue - 26 countries are doing all the negotiations with industry
Andy Clarke: There is a mindset here that is arrogant, that we can understand all the operations of this world. There is so much that we don't understand and that we can never understand. We can't play God and get away with it.
JB: I can recommend two books— Our Final Century (British) and Our Final Hour (American).
Joe Clark: Just to clarify, you're not saying “stop” researching nanotechnology, you're saying “regulate” nanotechnology?
PM: Correct
Joe Clark: And no one at Glenn Eagles said technology would solve all our environmental problems, but they did day that it could help solve these problems?
PM: Correct
Joe Clark: You say the UN has been left out of this. Does the UN not have the capacity to step into it?
PM: If there is political will, it could. The UN could step in if it wants, but it lost in the 1990s the two offices dealing with science and technology that would have dealt with this because the US wanted them repealed. Now there is no appropriate forum for this issue in the UN
Joe Clark: You say that when dangers arise, there is some response. For example, you mentioned that the US stopped lacing the ocean with pellets when they observed risky results. So this is not wildly out of control?
PM: No, it's not wildly out of control yet. They're continuing with the experiments, but they're also being more careful about it after scaring themselves. Nevertheless, we already have a billion-dollar industry on nanotechnology with products already on the shelves. It is a race, primarily against the Chinese.
Derek Paul: What is the end result? Where do nano-particles go in the end? What is their final resting place in the ecosystem?
PM: The whole nano-tech industry is a major threat. In fact, an amount so small can have a very huge surface to volume ratio. Suppose they go into the sea – a ton and half of nano-particles can cover 40,000 square km – and we don't know what these particles will do when they get there. Yet, we're prepared to have a company make and manufacture these particles and distribute them. Before they're allowed to manufacture at all there should be a pollution study done. But because there's a trade war going on, health and environmental issues don't seem to be that important.
Derek Paul: Secondly, I wanted to comment that climate change is progressing more negatively than in the models that Jim Bruce presented. A recent study in Greenland by American geologists showed that the temperature has already increased 6 degrees! The enormous Greenland icecap that is 1/2 km thick is floating on its own water. When it melts completely, the ocean will rise 6 metres. Think of the damage!
JB: Once the sea level rises, the melting of the ice cap in Greenland is the unknown. There is disagreement about what will happen. It could be worse than we expect.
Peggy Mason : We need to study, and study before we regulate. I am so surprised at the lack of public consultation.
PM: There has been some public debate focused on the environment, but with respect to this whole issue of nanotechnology, it is shocking that there has been no public engagement whatsoever.
Al Slavin : There is a distinction that needs to be made here. There is nanotechnology that is building larger material from the bottom up. There is also the group that is using nanotechnologies for their own unique properties at the micro-level. We have to use the precautionary principle for fear of a large-scale release of these particles into the environment. It needs to be regulated more so than the other use of the technology, so there is an important distinction to be made.
PM: It is still a concern for building larger materials because they can start manipulating DNA. Monsanto is doing it now.
Newton Bowles : What are the implications of nano-technology for killing? For war?
PM: Some of the same substances used for cleaning teeth can be used by the US military for explosive devices.
DISCUSSION GROUP 1
Editor's synopsis of the main points discussed in Discussion Group 1. They are roughly grouped in three areas; nanotechnology, technology regulation, and what might be done about climate change and pollution.
Nanotechnology
- Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and other major environmental organizations are examining the implications of nanotechnology for ecology.
- The union movement in Australia is concerned about the safety consequences.
- On paper, nanotechnology offers as much as it threatens. For example, the capacity of fuel cells could easily be doubled, and CGIAR (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research) is experimenting with nanotechnology to purify water in Bangladesh .
- Nanotechnology could also, theoretically, eliminate the need for some natural resources and thus reduce the miserable mining conditions in 3 rd world countries.
- Carbon dioxide could be sequestered in the earth, and there was a successful case study of this in Weyburn , Saskatchewan .
- The other side of the coin is threatening because we know almost nothing about how nanotechnology reacts with the environment.
- All tests that have been conducted so far (by DuPont, NASA, etc.) say there is a problem—maybe not a critical problem, but a problem.
- How long could it last? How do the different “nano-shapes” react? What about the merger between living and non-living material (nano-biotechnology) and what are the implications for biodiversity (i.e. inventing new life forms)? Even Nature magazine in the UK suggests that we may be moving too fast.
- There are now three forms of creating life: in vivo, in vitro, and “in-venter.”
- It is interesting that nanotechnology is potentially replacing biotechnology, which is a sector that is just emerging in its own right. Have we given enough time for the standard, natural ways of doing things to work? For example, biotechnology has had success with plants that can absorb nickel and other minerals, which could be used to clean up certain sites.
- Some countries use much less energy in production. The argument that many could use new technologies such as nanotechnology to reduce energy consumption does not always apply because we have run out of 10% copper ore and cheap oil.
Technology Regulation
- The idea of a Technology Assessment Office has been floated before in the 1980s by the Swedish government. In the 1990s the UN lost two offices dealing with science and technology that would have dealt with assessment because the US wanted them repealed. The UN University has proposed it in their Futures Study this year. Brussels (European Union) is talking about establishing a code of ethics and would consider such an office because they think it would ease some of the public heat on nanotechnology. Britain was thinking of setting up their own assessment office within their PMO (Prime Minister's Office).
- Governments have scared themselves with how fast this technology is moving, because they realise that it could take 10-12 years to get a treaty to regulate it internationally.
- Pharmaceutical companies exploit government research by jumping on it when something looks promising and trying to patent it.
- An Office of Technology Assessment might eliminate some of these unfair corporate advantages.
- Just like the landmines treaty, we can't wait for the US on this one. We should move ahead, and they can join later if they find out they were wrong.
- There are three people in the Canadian PMO studying “converging technologies.”
- There is also a Canadian Nanotechnology Institute in Edmonton that is funded by the federal government. If it is a Centre of Excellence, it is meant to guarantee that core research is not compromised by potential commercial benefits. They could also take on the social debate.
- There is a one-day federal inter-departmental meeting this week in Ottawa to discuss how to manage the social debate over nanotechnology by learning from the experience with biotechnology (e.g. patenting parts of the human genome).
Climate change and pollution
- What is the point of doing anything if other countries continue to pollute?
- China has terribly polluted cities, and they'll want this technology because their people are dying of health-related problems. What can China do other than the technological fix if they want to keep growing to the industrial level of the US ? Right now they're using coal because it is their only option, even though it is terrible for the environment. Something like 20% of the atmospheric mercury in North America comes from Chinese coal-burning.
- Most of the pollution is taking place in the big cities. There was a 50% reduction in emergency room visits on high-pollution days in cities like London and Singapore after they banned cars from their inner cities.
- We need to discuss links between community, environment and health, and build community consensus. We need to engage the community and have a dialogue. Kids now are already being engaged and learning about the environment in school. They're way ahead. Now adults have to catch up. A lot of people still fail to understand how important the ecology is to our lives.
- There were companies 20 years ago that could provide solar power efficiently, but people were reluctant to purchase until it was more mainstream, so there was no capital for further development. The government should subsidize these infant industries until they are big enough to compete on their own.
- The UN worked on a resolution to this effect, but the U.S. , Russia and OPEC watered it down just like the U.S. did at this latest conference, bracketing out anything with money in it. ? We should go ahead without the Americans.
- Governments could mandate solar-powered water heating, which would save huge amounts of natural gas. There is an upfront cost to that even though you save over the long term, which is a discouragement unless the governments subsidize it. There are also jurisdictional issues with the federal government and their approval of different types of solar panels.
- Change is difficult because of inertia. Scepticism, risk-aversion and vested interests come into play with environmental issues. We have to tackle attitudes and identify obstacles and the measures needed to overcome them. It takes more than economic arguments to change someone's mindset.
- When Singapore raised the price of cars, people drove their old cars longer, so they started to charge on the miles driven.
- Europe has encouraged smaller cars successfully. Cameras in London that “see” your car and charge the congestion fee are working very well.
- There is a holistic paradigm for the 21 st century which challenges some of the thinking of the Enlightenment and proposes to advance civilization with increased regard for everything living.
- That approach is too abstract. You should appeal to what people see as tangible: “Do you want cleaner air and water?”
- The government should also offer corporations bonuses for producing fuel-efficient cars.
- Don't give bonuses because that costs the government money.
- We should tax so much on SUVs and inefficient vehicles that it's prohibitive to produce/sell them.
- The government would need to give the corporations a notice period first, say 18 months, so they can ramp up for the market and production shift.
- The government also needs to stop subsidizing the auto industry. If price rules supreme, then taxes should be raised on fuel, not reduced in light of current prices.
- New Brunswick is already reducing them.
- The government already gives a rebate on the purchase of hybrid vehicles, but that comes out of government revenue instead of levying surcharges on polluting vehicles.
- The models suggest that the carbon dioxide concentration could stabilize between 300 and 700 ppm. In the optimistic scenario, sea level would rise for 300 years. If Kyoto is not implemented, sea level will rise for 3000 years.
- 50% is a good goal for the next fifty years but we have to look beyond that.
Panel 2 - COMMON SECURITY OR GLOBAL MILITARY DOMINANCE: THE MANAGEMENT OF OUTER SPACE
PANEL 2 PRESENTATIONS
Chair: Peggy Mason
Panelists: Detlev Wolter, Erika Simpson
Detlev Wolter : On all issues of arms control and conflict prevention, we must have greater engagement with civil society. We saw the impact of this movement last week, at the level of heads of state and government when the Security Council met and adopted a resolution on conflict prevention in New York in July.
The topic of this discussion is the prevention of the arms race in outer space. Even though the opinions presented in this discussion reflect similar opinions to those of the German Government, these comments are a personal contribution from my own involvement in the issue.
I'd like to thank Peggy Mason for active participation and encouragement and the Polaris Institute for promoting the idea of my book. It's a pleasure to be here with Erika Simpson, who I met at conferences in Atlanta and Hiroshima .
I have great appreciation for Canada 's relentless stance on disarmament, non-proliferation and peace-building. Germany is pleased to work with Canada on these issues.
How can we revitalize internationalism in light of the UN's failure to address nuclear disarmament and proliferation at various summits. This is an issue of utmost urgency.
If we do not start addressing the preservation of the peaceful use of outer space, then we can no longer speak of internationalism. How will we be able to manage outer space? How will we keep it free of weapons?
I congratulate Canada for opting out of missile defence, but we have to do more.
When I addressed the conference on the 60 th anniversary of the nuclear bomb, I outlined that we must disarm, eliminate all weapons of mass destruction. We must fulfil the hopes of the UN founders to avoid war. This is the moral, humanitarian and political urge we feel in the face of unilateralist intentions to deconstruct the international order as we know it. The hegemonic drive doesn't stop at Earth, but is bent to conquer the “last frontier”. How do we prevent the weaponization of outer space? How do we achieve such a treaty and what would it consist of?
We need to undertake new attempts to strengthen the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. This will not be enough to achieve a nuclear-free world. We need to get support from the power capitals ( Washington , Moscow , Beijing , London , Paris , Tokyo , etc.).
We must change our thinking about security and negotiate a new order of common security.
The proposal for cooperative security is visionary, but not utopian. It's practical and strategic in an era of vulnerability and risk of total annihilation in this nuclear age. The elaboration of non-discriminatory cooperative security would allow us to achieve the nuclear convention, which has found much support in civil society and less in governments. It would allow us to achieve a nuclear-free world in 2020. We need to replace MAD (mutually assured destruction) with MAS (mutually assured security) and arrive at complete disarmament (which is article 6 of the NPT).
What are the conceptual foundations of common security?
Common security originated during the cold war as a concept in Germany to overcome the East-West dilemma. The main concepts of “common security” were elaborated by Hans Dieter Lutz and Egon Bahr. It was then internationally recognized by the Palmé Commission in 1972, which submitted a report on common security. It was recognized by the First Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on disarmament in 1972. In the 1990s, the Brookings Institute took the idea of “common security” and labelled it “cooperative security.” The main components of this concept, applied to outer space, give us a chance to prevent its weaponization.
Why is it so urgent? Humanity is on the verge of an irreversible shift to active military use of outer space. The weaponization of space will surpass the introduction of nuclear weapons in historical significance.
Applying these concepts to outer space in order to negotiate a convention, the Common Security in Outer Space (CSO) treaty would be based on the legal obligations set out in the in the Outer Space treaty. Firstly, outer space is beyond national jurisdiction (it's not the 53 rd state). In this domain, security must be common. Secondly, its foundation is conceptual. Finally, there is a legal obligation enshrined in the UN General Assembly resolutions (i.e. PAROS resolution on the prevention of an arms race in outer space). Member states are obliged to use outer space for peaceful purposes only.
There is an element of urgency: we're already in the arms race for outer space. Huge investments are being made in developing new systems, and Russia and China are already taking steps for counter-measures. For example, Russian President Putin announced a new weapon last year, a manoeuvrable re-entry vehicle, that is precisely designed to overcome missile defense in outer space . With the Rumsfeld Commission and the workings of the Space Command, the doctrine is already developed for considering outer space as the last frontier; “space warriors” have stated in the Space Vision 2020 that space is the high ground, and its control would mean “freedom from attack and freedom to attack.” U.S. theories of naval dominance developed in earlier years are now being applied to outer space.
I commend Canada for the excellent work done in documenting all of this, for example its support for the “Space Security Index” recently released for 2004.
The main elements of the proposed Common Security in Outer Space (CSO) treaty would be:
- A complete ban of space weapons prohibiting both ballistic missile defence and space-based anti-satellite weapons, as well as the destruction of ground-based anti-satellite system (ASATs);
- Transparency and confidence-building measures in outer-space, to build on the excellent work of the UN expert group in 1990 which submitted a comprehensive report on the kind of confidence-building measures states could adopt on outer space (for example, Russia has now drafted a resolution on confidence-building measures on outer space);
- Provide for structurally non-offensive force configurations in outer space to transition from MAD to MAS;
- Strengthen nuclear disarmament by a non-discriminatory regime, offering advantages to states that are now hesitant and access to civilian space technology under international control. The implementation of the system would have to be secured by a multilateral monitoring and verification mechanism.
In addition to a weapons ban, we need to provide positive elements of cooperative and common security in outer space in order to make it attractive to the U.S. and the European countries, which would create a regime of non-interference with civilian satellites (i.e. rules of the road, etc.). We would need an elaborate monitoring and verification system and we can build on excellent proposals from former working groups of the Conference on Disarmament.
Final point: How can we move toward such a regime?
Canada has made the first step in opting out of the American ballistic missile defence programme. I hope that other like-minded countries will build on these proposals, support them, and that this will be the way forward. Canada has proposed a review conference on the Outer Space treaty. 2007 is the 40th anniversary of this treaty and would be an appropriate time to add a protocol to the treaty. We need an explicit space weapons ban, which could be negotiated by like-minded states in preparation for a 2007 review conference of this treaty. If Ottawa could take the initiative, it would be a great favour for mankind.
Conclusion: Common security is a pragmatic vision; it can be unified to create a compassionate frame of mind.
Erika Simpson
“The United States and Space: (In)Security in the Twenty-First Century: Current controversies, Past Debates and Future Issues”
Editor's note: Simpson presented many powerpoint slides with images and photos in order to stimulate debate. Her talk was divided into three sections:
I. Current Controversies: the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) Project and the United States' new pre-emptive strategy, 1999-2005
What are the arguments for and against Canada 's participation?
A number of classic arguments have been put forward in favour of Canada joining the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence Project (BMD). For example, it has been argued that BMD will help provide protection for Canada from a single missile from a rogue state. (e.g. a North Korean missile heading toward Seattle ) as it is a limited defense system, not a ‘Star Wars' program. Some have argued that It may give us protection from many missiles launched against the U.S. by ‘rogue states' like Iraq , Iran or Libya . Indeed, it could protect North America and Europe from all types of nuclear threats in the future. While North Korea , Cuba , and Iraq may not currently threaten North America , other rogue states could develop a nuclear capacity due to nuclear proliferation.
A number of ‘counterarguments' have been made against these classic arguments. If ‘rogue states' like Cuba, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea threaten international security, surely other less expensive strategies can alleviate these tensions. For example, ending the Cold War between North and South Korea through negotiation (e.g. six party talks) would cost less than BMD. Those who argue that BMD may be needed to defend against Nuclear Weapon States like China , need to remember that BMD currently cannot provide any protection against deliberate nuclear attacks by existing nuclear powers or nuclear terrorists.
The cost of BMD could be prohibitive. The United States now spends about $379 billion annually on defence. The other NATO allies spend about $147 billion annually. BMD is currently an insignificant cost compared to the total U.S. and NATO spending on defence of $526 billion annually. But the long-term cost of ‘arming the heavens' will be prohibitive as defending those weapons in space will cost much more than the weapons themselves and the money spent would be better spent on international organizations like the UN.
Conservative estimates are that a missile defence shield would cost over $100 ( U.S. ) billion dollars. That's twice as much as Russia 's annual defence budget, and three times more than China 's 2001 defence budget. Plus it would start a new arms race with Russia and China , which worry about protecting their nuclear deterrents. It might even provoke Pakistan and India to build up their nuclear arsenals, leading to a nuclear arms race in Asia .
It is apparent that if the U.S. continues on its present trajectory—threatening to respond or pre-empt a nuclear, biological or chemical attack with nuclear weaponry—it will incite an arms race. Many states will also seek to deter or pre-empt using new types of weapons, like “enhanced radiation weapons”, “space control satellites” and “nuclear-survivable communications systems.” The costs for the world will be enormous as countries compete to design weapons for possible use against undeterrable terrorists, on rogue-state battlefields or in outer space.
Could BMD protect North America from a terrorist attack from a sub-state actor? BMD would not have prevented the attacks on New York or previous terrorist attacks such as on the Olympic Games. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are deliverable now - by bomber, cruise missile, cargo ship, railway, bus, or suitcase. The ‘poor man's' bombs are chemical and biological (e.g. smallpox). BMD will not prevent a terrorist travelling through about 12 international airports and spreading a new form of smallpox very easily.
Increases in U.S. defence spending may not be the most effective method of combating terrorism. Last year, in peacetime, the U.S. increased the world's largest defence budget by $33 billion. This increase is more than the entire Gross Domestic Product of one-third of the nations of the world, including Cuba , North Korea , and Lebanon .
How do we combat the roots of terrorism and prevent more of these kinds of tragedies from happening, without alienating more of the world's population as they see us build a kind of 'Fortress America' at great expense? It seems to me w e need to address some of the huge inequalities, the gaps in living standards, the terrible injustices of the world that lead young boys to become terrorists. Suicide bombers are not born, they are made.
Some may argue that contributing to BMD might be a waste of money, however, such a gesture of solidarity with our neighbour would mean new U.S. technology could be used to protect us from new types of future Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Since new types of defenses against Atomic, Biological, Chemical (ABC) weapons are being developed, Canada needs to have a ‘seat at the table.'
But we need to keep in mind that contributing to BMD would also involve Canada in the United States ' new doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. According to the U.S. National Security Strategy of 2002 “ We cannot let our enemies strike first….To forestall or prevent such hostile acts the U.S. will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.”
This new doctrine of pre-emption conflicts with the UN's emphasis on collective security and collective action. While it is certainly true that the Americans cannot sit idly by while their security is undermined, the route they are taking will result in a more insecure world with a greater, not less, likelihood of nuclear war.
II. Past Debates: Canadian-American Defense Relations during the Cold War, 1949-1999
(Editor's note: Sections II and III have been severely cut due to length limitations. An excellent analysis can be found in the book by Erika Simpson, NATO and the Bomb: Canadian Defenders Confront Critics , ( Kingston & Montreal : McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001), 385 pp. which explores a number of questions:
- What lessons can be learned from Canada 's record of contrasting commitment to the United States?
- What underlying beliefs and assumptions have Canadian leaders shared about U.S. strategy, NATO and the nuclear bomb?
- Why did ‘Defenders' and ‘Critics' battle each other during Cabinet meetings and high-level discussions?
- What are the lessons of prior Cabinet decision-making on U.S. missiles?
- What are the lessons of the Bomarc missile for Canada 's participation in BMD?
III. Future Issues: The Future Implications of BMD, Pre-emptive Warfare and the War on Terrorism, 2005-?
What might be some of Canada 's options or alternatives? Should Canada continue to commit to American defence, NATO, and how? What about issue linkage? Will Canada be expected to help the U.S. in other ways? Canada and the UK have the technology to support the United States ' power projection capabilities.
How should a small ally or middle power within an alliance behave? What are our alternatives? Should Canada commit to U.S. defence policy projects and how?
In any discussion of whether the U.S. itself now poses the most serious threat to world security, some facts need highlighting. It is better to judge a nation by what it does, not what it says. The U.S. has yet to take its nuclear arsenal off the high alert status. It has not renounced first use of or threat to use nuclear weapons under all circumstances. It opposes the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and it has withdrawn from the ABM treaty. Moreover, it is making plans to shorten the time needed to resume testing of new more usable nuclear weapons.
The situation is similar to a boy's gang where the leader is hell-bent on a dangerous course. Do the other boys follow him blindly or do they call a meeting to argue about the club's rules and principles?
PANEL 2 - Q &A
Peggy Mason: In the Cold War, we voted differently from the U.S. in the UN First Committee more than half the time. What has happened to Canadian Peacekeeping? It's no longer the UN, not even NATO. In Afghanistan we're behaving like American forces. What's Canada doing instead? They're funding a UN “blue helmet” course for UN Peacekeepers. They're buying off criticism.
Sarah Kemp: What are the implications for human rights issues of using BMD to defend against terrorism? Many countries have moved their development assistance (ODA) towards counter-terrorism rather than development as a priority.
Would the Outer Space treaty allow for limited ground/sea based missile defence which could become a ground-based system to attack satellites? Is it possible to have BMD even with the treaty? Civilian satellites can be used for military purposes; is this going to raise issues for government violations of possible treaties?
Barbara Birkett: Do you think that reopening the Outer Space treaty could establish new loopholes and make things worse rather than better?
ES: In response to the first question - Can you actually have a limited BMD? John Polanyi argued that you could have a limited BMD based on land, but it very quickly became clear that the U.S. has a 2020 space vision that will not be limited. Huntley at the Liu Institute has documented the U.S. stance on 2020 since the Clinton administration, but the U.S. enthusiasm about BMD took off under the Bush administration (and is directly opposed by the Mayors for Peace 2020 strategies).
Also, the number of countries that CIDA is funding has gone down; money for peacekeepers has gone down
DW: I want to leave the issue on limited BMD open so that the U.S. will join at some point; I am convinced that there is a strong movement in the U.S., especially in Congress, that opposes the weaponization of space; the U.S. has adopted law on weapons of mass destruction There could be accidental attacks, for example, local commanders launching without authorization; a limited ground-based system could be used for such purposes, but should be under international control and we must be very cautious.
The cost of weapons in space will be tremendous, because we will start both defensive and offensive arms races. For example, if someone builds a ballistic missile shield , someone else will want to overcome it, and this can be done inexpensively, much more cheaply, than developing the missile defenses themselves. The civilian space industry does not want weapons to interfere with their technology. It makes their business much more expensive and complicated, so they are in favour of non-interference regimes and conduct rules.
Editor's note: While the term missile defense “shield” is often used, what it actually means is the effort, as yet unsuccessful, to develop a missile that can intercept an incoming ballistic missile.
We should not touch the Outer Space treaty. We could negotiate a space weapons ban as an additional protocol to the treaty
Barry Toole: Is Canada going to work with other countries in the world to oppose the pre-emptive doctrine?
DW: We need to publicly oppose the pre-emptive strategy and say that it is unacceptable and doesn't conform to international law and many governments do. In addition, we should work on elaborating the Outer Space treaty regime.
Jim McNeil: Given that the U.S. has superpower status and determination to keep it, and a propensity to tear up treaties, etc., can either speaker suggest a credible scenario under which the U.S. will not simply put arms in space at the first opportunity?
DW: It is hard to predict if it will succeed, but we have possibilities to do something that will at least make it much more difficult to weaponize space. I am convinced that if we act, there is a good chance to prevent the weaponization of space (WOS); there are many people in the U.S. who are opposed to it, many Americans don't want tax dollars spent on this.
If some like-minded states, perhaps NATO allies, start negotiating such a regime, then there is much potential. What if the International Court of Justice gave an opinion/judgment that it is illegal to put weapons in outer space; what implications does this have for companies involved? There should be an ethics code for scientists not to work on nuclear weapons or space weapons.
We need to act soon; otherwise we will see more countries getting nuclear weapons. When Pakistan got nuclear weapons, they were upgraded; when Iraq did not, they were attacked – what lessons are countries learning from this? We need to have equal security for everyone.
We also need to look at renewable energy more than nuclear energy; we can convince countries not to do enrichment for weapons-grade material; they can use low-grade material but it has to be under strict international control.
Dwight Fulford: Iran wants nuclear weapons; how can we respond to security concerns?
Peggy Mason: The missing link in the EU approach is a security guarantee for Iran .
ES: We are still very different from the U.S. ; we did decline on BMD. At the UN summit we put forth the “responsibility to protect” doctrine and it was passed. We have supported the International Criminal Court (ICC) even though the U.S. has rejected it. We are a middle power that works with other countries. We may have to wait until the next U.S. election where there is a change of regime that can work better with Canada . Because of the crisis in New Orleans , the U.S. may undergo some major policy changes; rebuilding is going to cost billions of dollars, so perhaps this most recent disaster will herald the beginning of working together with other countries because they realize they need support?
Peggy Mason : Why did the U.S. agree to the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P)? Because it's the use of pre-emptive force.
ES: R2P is not a unilateral pre-emptive force because the Security Council has to approve its use.
Peggy Mason: But the U.S. still did not agree to disarmament of any kind.
DISCUSSION GROUP 2
The discussion group following Panel 2 was focused on developing the resolutions presented
LUNCHEON SPEAKER
THE OUTCOME OF THE UN SUMMIT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UN'S ROLE IN THE WORLD
Nigel Fisher
An overview of what survived – and what did not survive - in the bruising final days
of negotiation of the Summit Outcome document; and a reflection on implications for the UN and its role.
Introduction
Those were the days:
“I feel sure that …I speak for every member of the Assembly...We pledge ( to the Secretary-General) our cooperation and our support. As chief administrative officer of the United Nations, with all the prestige and authority vested in that office by the Charter, he has great and heavy responsibilities in carrying out the resolutions and decisions of our world Organization, in giving leadership and inspiration to our international civil service, and in assisting delegations and governments to develop and strengthen international co-operation for peace, progress and greater human welfare. Our Secretary-General will not be able to discharge these responsibilities as he would wish, and as we would wish, unless we back him up in every possible way”.
Lester B. Pearson, President of the UN General Assembly, speaking to the GA on 10 April, 1953 (referring to incoming Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold).
In 1945, the creation of the UN reflected the world order that existed then, but has now passed. What type of world do we have today, and how should the UN respond?
Since 1989/90, the world has become unipolar, but already there are stirrings of a different future as China , India , and Brazil emerge.
Ambassador Bolton made it clear that the U.S.
- has no interest in a reformed, stronger UN
- does not want an expanded Security Council or dispersion of power away from itself.
- wants a weaker UN, wants to retain the power to act alone/with selected allied partners.
- wants to shift away from the General Assembly's 1 person, 1 vote, to other fora, if necessary, outside the UN.
Many other countries, including Canada and most OECD countries, still place the UN at the centre of international governance mechanisms. The UN is its member states – it mirrors the give and take of international relations.
The UN has a normative/policy-making perspective and its bureaucracy has a role to manage. But the Oil for Food Programme investigation and the Volcker Report have brought into question the credibility of the UN bureaucracy: is it a plus or a liability which impedes the use of the UN as a tool in international relations? Has the bureaucracy reached the level of becoming a state – and an incompetent one - in and of itself, leading, not following, the state-driven web of international relations? The criticisms are out there. However, like Paul Heinbecker, I consider the Volcker report a total whitewash of member state and Security Council responsibility, but the mud is sticking to the face of the UN bureaucracy.
The UN General Assembly is all about negotiation and compromise, so should we be surprised that the current Summit Outcome document is very much a compromise document?
Delegations are putting a good face on it, but there is widespread disappointment, and among UN staff too. The cup is half full, but we glimpsed it at ¾ full before it lost quite a bit of its punch. Perhaps our expectations were too high, too unrealistic.
The Outcome document is a shadow of Kofi Annan's “In Larger Freedom” of last March. The Secretary General expended a lot of his political capital on the reform proposals. But the bruising negotiations in recent weeks diluted the outcome document; it's certainly not a total disaster, there are some reforms, but they fall far short of Annan's goals for security, poverty reduction, environment, human development, with one or two notable exceptions, which I will highlight.
The main elements
The emphasis that development, peace, security and human rights are mutually reinforcing is reiterated throughout the document.
Development assistance
Commitments to poverty eradication, Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), debt reduction, financing for development were reaffirmed, but poverty goals and development benchmarks were diluted.
Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) increases are acknowledged/encouraged, but the target for donor countries to attain the development aid target of 0.7% of GDP by 2015 has been dropped. Countries already on this track are commended. Others are now “urged to make concrete efforts in this regard, in accordance with their commitments” (ie. no pressure on them to do better. In a 26 August 2005 letter to other ambassadors to the UN, John Bolton reminded them that “the measurement of ODA as an explicit percentage of donor gross national income has been explicitly rejected by the United States . The United States has consistently opposed numerical aid targets from their inception in the 1970s” ).
The EU can take satisfaction that the MDGs are back in the document; they have emphasized in the negotiations that they see development at the heart of the new challenges, as the defining UN mission, and that development, peace and security and human rights are interlinked.
Each country must take primary responsibility for its own development emphasizing the central role of national policies and development strategies in setting national priorities, and supported by increased development assistance, trade, investment, debt relief.
There was support for an enhanced role for NGOs, civil society, private sector in development efforts, for new global partnerships, for innovative sources of financing.
While the document emphasizes that UN actors are to ensure their support of developing country efforts through a more coordinated approach and supporting capacity-building, earlier references to enhanced resourcing and an enhanced role for them have been expunged. For example, prior references to a UN l eadership role in international development have been watered down to the UN's “fundamental” role, helping coherence, coordination, implementation of development goals and actions agreed by the international community; and to the necessity to strengthen coordination within the UN system.
These are important shifts/trends for the UN to take into account in its development work.
Trade
Substantial paragraphs on the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Doha agenda and commitments, on trade-distorting domestic support, export subsidies, subsidies to domestic agriculture in the industrialized countries were weakened or expunged:
Peace and collective security
The section was weakened, with the omission of wording on the resolve to take concerted/collective action based on the UN Charter and respect for international law. What has survived is the vaguer wording: “recognize, acknowledge, reaffirm”.
Use of force
Rules for the use of force such as “we affirm that the use of force should be considered an instrument of last resort”; “we stress the importance of the adherence to the principle of legality”; “we are determined to enhance the consistent application of the principle of the non-use of force in international relations”; “we recognize the need to continue discussing criteria for consideration of the use of force…”were a casualty of U.S. pressure.
Disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation
In the 12 September draft, this section consisted of a title and a blank space. The section had gone entirely by the 13 th , a victim of the U.S. torpedo. Kofi Annan called this omission “a disgrace”.
Terrorism
The bargained down section outlaws the incitement to terrorism, but no agreement was reached on its definition. Annan said “at least it's there”.
In the last days of the bargaining process, language condemning the targeting of civilians was deleted in a tit-for-tat deal which dropped language recognizing “the legitimate right of peoples under foreign occupation to struggle for their independence and in defence of their right of self-determination”.
Peacekeeping
The good news is that the UN peacekeeping role was reaffirmed as a “vital role”.
Integrated missions were called for; there should be greater cohesion between peacekeeping, political, development and humanitarian roles of the UN.
A small but significant break-through was the endorsement of the creation of “an initial operating capability for a standing Police Capacity” in the UN, for rapid start-up operations and deployment (ie a UN core capacity, which will not have to await contributions of such capacity from member states).
Peace-Building
The good news is the authorization of the establishment of the Peace-building Commission, to begin its work no later than 31 December 2005. It is intended to “bring together all relevant actors” to marshal resources to facilitate an integrated, rapid response in post-conflict environments, drawing on all appropriate resources and capacities – to maintain peace and security, and to focus resources on reconstruction and institution-building in the immediate aftermath of conflict.
However, the wording “reporting to the Security Council” and many references to the agenda of the Security Council and the advisory role of the Commission to the Security Council and precise wording on its composition were dropped from earlier drafts. An anemic “The Peace-building Commission should submit an annual report to the General Assembly” was retained. The torpedoing of the Security Council link was the result of a strong lobby by some strong G77 members who saw this as a threat to the power of the General Assembly.
The Secretary General is also authorized to set up a Peace-building Fund.
Human Rights
The document is mostly reaffirmations of old language, but it did resolve to double the (small) budget of the Office of the High Commissioner over the next five years.
Responsibility to protect (from genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, crimes against humanity)
This has now emerged as one of the landmark achievements of the Summit – due in large part to Canadian leadership/determination. It was strongly opposed by many in the Group of 77, and two of the Big 5 Security Council members. When Rwanda decided to support it, African countries followed
This great first step started to chip away at sovereign state rights that conflict with human rights by emphasizing that:
- with state sovereignty goes the obligation to protect the population;
- international intervention is justified when failure is abject.
The authority to intervene has to come through the Security Council, and is thus subject to the threat of a Security Council veto.
Environment
Mostly a rehash of former (unfulfilled) commitments.
Reform of the Security Council
Was a casualty of the bargaining process. Only general platitudes survived: “we support early reform”, “we commit ourselves to continue our efforts to achieve a decision…”.
The issue of wider representation is dead “for at least 15 years”, according to one major European government.
The unresolved disputes over who should get new seats helped to sink it: e.g. Japan preferred no vote rather than losing. Also the U.S. had no desire to widen veto powers, membership/representation.
Human Rights Council
Members resolved to create a new Human Rights Council to replace the discredited Commission. However, the mandate, functions, size, membership and procedures of the Council are referred back to President of the General Assembly for negotiations.
Secretariat/management reform
Modest measures, accompanied by affirmation of the need to decide on additional reforms represented some but not enough progress. New audit/oversight mechanisms were approved and existing capacities are to be strengthened.
The Secretary General has some more authority to change UN staffing and priorities, affirmed in his role of chief administrative officer (CAO) of the organization. But he is still not the CEO that he had hoped to become, to have more authority over staff appointments, resource allocation. He did not get wider executive powers or control over the budget – these powers still remain with the General Assembly. Again, G77 members primarily were very anxious to retain the purported powers of the General Assembly, and not cede them to a stronger Secretary General.
Given the General Assembly voting procedures, a small minority can block any advance. The Secretary General had hoped for a change to voting procedures, e.g. to have majority decision-making, but it did not happen.
He has to come back to the General Assembly with further proposals for implementing management reforms.
Improved cooperation/coordination among UN entities is also required, and all mandates older than 5 years that emanate from General Assembly resolutions, are to be reviewed.
System-wide coherence
This is essential, and has to move ahead on several fronts articulated in the document:
- Normative/operational coherence; coherence between governing boards.
- Coherence of operational activities, strengthening role of the senior resident UN official at country level.
- Improved management of operational activities.
- Strengthening humanitarian response capacity – through timely and predictable funding, and strengthened standby capacity for rapid response.
So what can we retrieve from the last few days, if anything?
The Outcome document acknowledges repeatedly that development, peace, security and human rights are mutually reinforcing. But we see that:
- The development sections are much less incisive than we hoped.
- Peace and security: we have Responsibility to Protect, the new Peace-building Commission, the reaffirmation of the UN's peacekeeping role, but we have weakened commitments to collective action, weaker language on rules for the use of force, obfuscation on terrorism, a conspicuous blank on disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.
- Human rights: we have the commitment to a strengthened High Commissioner's Office. But the Human Rights Council is referred back to the President of the General Assembly for further negotiation.
- Security Council reform is dead for the foreseeable future.
- Secretariat and management reform: there is some progress, but the General Assembly guardians were not willing to trade away any of its purported influence in order to strengthen the leadership and decision-making authority of the Secretary General. He has to go back to the General Assembly with further reform proposals.
So again, what can we retrieve from the gloom of the last week? I would suggest a few points of light for the UN:
- There is no change to the basic question: “what does it take to maintain peace and security?” I think – I hope – that there is an understanding within and beyond the General Assembly, that poverty, inequality, gender inequity, lack of representation, repression and human rights abuse are triggers for a globalizing form of warfare - terrorism – and have to be addressed.
- There has been a reaffirmation of the UN's role in peacekeeping, in peace-building (we have the Commission), post-conflict transition, humanitarian action, and a determination to ensure more coherent action.
- The Responsibility To Protect is a significant step forward, really one of the highlights of the summit outcome.
- Where I see quite some hope for the UN in the immediate term is the likelihood of linking progress on the development agenda and the streamlining of the UN presence and action at country level.
Let's look at the Europeans for a moment: Europe contributes 50%+ of resources for all UN operations. Europe has been very blunt in its discussions: increased funding for operations can come, but only if accompanied by substantial reforms.
Europe , as a friend of the UN, has some tough love messages:
- ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) is increasingly going to support for national plans and priorities, to direct budget support to developing country governments, through the World Bank, IMF and bilateral agreements. The UN is rarely present in these negotiations.
- The IDA (International Development Association) 14 grant window now exceeds all funding channeled through the UN.
- ODA channeled through NGOs now exceeds that going through the UN.
- There are other alternatives, new global funds, public/private partnerships.
- Donors, led by the Europeans, are determined to rationalize and harmonize their own aid practices and expect the UN to do the same at the country level. Some examples of “delegated partnerships” of donors include:
- Four European donors share an office in southern Sudan
- In Malawi , Norway manages all Sweden 's programmes
- In Serbia , the Netherlands manages all Norway 's programmes
The UN's European friends see it as too slow, and not sufficiently supportive of the trend towards backing national decision-making, national priorities, national capacity-building. They consider that too few of the UN's resources reach the poor, because of: high administrative costs, too many agencies with too many projects and activities, too thinly spread, and waste due to duplication and competition.
The good news is that the Europeans got much of what they wanted in language in the Summit outcome document, on development and reform:
- they led the battle to head off the U.S. , and prevailed, so the MDGs, with all their acknowledged flaws, are back in.
- wording on changing and increasing aid flows to support developing countries to set their own directions, is in there, and linked to good governance, representation, transparency, respect for human rights.
- they have the commitment in the document to pursue reform of UN Funding and Programmes at the macro level, policy coherence within the UN and among its parts, and harmonized and improved governance of the various agencies.
- On UN reform at the country level, they have harmonization and streamlining of the UN presence, programmatic coherence, greater efficiency, and UN commitment to country ownership and capacity support.
So, at least in these spheres, a solid and influential group of friends and funders of the UN feels that it has the framework needed to move forward with some tough love measures. There is support for the UN, but only if it undertakes a series of clear reforms
Combine these with support for the UN's peacekeeping role, for its post-conflict peace-building role, for Responsibility to Protect, and there is scope for hope, at least in these corners of the UN's work. Canada is, or ought to be, a natural ally of the countries across the Atlantic in moving forward on this agenda.
So is the outcome of the Summit the ambitious blueprint hoped for? Not any more. Some commitments are quite vague; there is much left pending. Several key issues have been drowned. As the German Permanent Representative to the UN has stated “We don't have the ‘great reform idea', but we have taken an important step in the direction of UN reform”. His French homologue adds: “It is not ideal, but has enough substance to take us forward”.
There has to be hope to impel us forward. So amidst the gloom, seize on these points of light – Responsibility to Protect, affirmation of the UN's peacekeeping and peace-building roles, the prospect for real reform in its development practice. Let's build on concrete progress and tangible results in these fields, while we struggle with many other more intractable issues.
Is the UN adapting? What is its role to be? How can a large, unwieldy global organization organized around the basic principle of one country one vote, remain relevant? Can it regain a technocratic and managerial role? Can it be the centerpiece of the multilateral architecture, or will it be just a bit-player?
The basic premises and principles of the UN – the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, remain intact. But major questions such as a clearer role definition for the political, technocratic and operational work of the UN or how it can respond to member states in a unipolar world are still works in progress.
So that's it – qualified optimism … or is it grasping at straws? Which perspective do you choose? The half full bottle, or the half empty?
Woody Allen had something to say about making difficult choices – and bottles! When asked for his opinion on the evils of alcohol, he opined: “Better a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy”.
With that profundity, I close.
As Tiny Tim said: “God bless us every one!”
Panel 3 - TRADE, INVESTMENT, PROPERTY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: GETTING THE MIX RIGHT
PANEL 3 PRESENTATIONS
Chair: Barbara Darling
Panelists: Melissa Powell, Michael Hart
Melissa Powell: The UN and business share values such as sustainable development, peace, and prosperity. T he Global Compact is a corporate responsibility, multi stakeholder program which began with a speech by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2004. It is a voluntary program based on the following ten principles: |
|
 |
1) Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights;
2) Make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
3) Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
4) The elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
5) The effective abolition of child labour; and,
6) The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
7) Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
8) Undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
9) Encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.
10) Businesses should work against all forms of corruption, including extortion and bribery.
The Global Compact isn't a substitute for government regulation. The Global Compact provides a framework within which companies can develop codes of conduct, and report back after implementing them. These companies also need to ensure their standards of operation are consistent throughout the world.
Together with the United Nations Development Programme, the International Labour Organization, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Transparency International and the analytical capacity of the UN system we provide the resources with which companies can change the way they're doing business. At the institutional level, we are trying to ensure that the private sector plays its role in implementing the agreements to which their own governments have adhered.
Our recent publication, “Raising the Bar”, shows how companies can create additional value by incorporating Compact principles into their practices.
Though the language used in international affairs is quite different from that in business, the UN can benefit from the management practices of the private sector, while the private sector will profit from an increased understanding of risk management from an alternative perspective.
The reasons why businesses should be interested in adopting these principles are numerous, all falling under the category of business drivers:
Ethics, corporate governance crises and accounting scandals;
Changing public expectations and stakeholder demands;
Sustained, effective NGO pressures upon business practices;
Globalization: the recognition that business plays an important role in alleviating the uneven outcomes of globalization.
The adoption of the principles of the Global Compact is completely voluntary. We don't have the capacity to regulate or monitor each company's compliance. CEOs must send a letter to the Secretary-General pledging their support for the implementation of these principles. This sparks an internal self-regulating process, the absence of which has led to the failure of similar initiatives, and which emphasizes what companies can do within their own sphere of influence to contribute to a more sustainable world order. In some respects, companies are sticking their necks out into areas in which they usually wouldn't be operating.
With the vision of “a sustainable and inclusive global economy” in mind, two further operational objectives are taken up by participating corporations:
To make the ten principles part of their business' objectives, operations and culture; and
To facilitate partnerships toward meeting UN goals, especially poverty alleviation. Every year, participating companies publish “Communications on Progress” reports to demonstrate publicly their progress in implementing the principles. This model encourages continuous improvement in order to foster organizational change and accurate reporting on progress made.
Over 2000 companies in 84 countries are a part of the Global Compact, with great representation in Brazil , Egypt , Argentina and Mexico . There is strong representation in the European Union, though it is underrepresented in many key markets, including the United States and Japan . In Canada , there are 25 companies committed to the Compact, though a network hasn't yet been created between them despite various efforts in the past three years. The United Nations Association in Canada , Hudson 's Bay Company, Corporate Knights, North American Forum on Integration, and Canadian Business for Social Responsibility are all examples of participating members. Not all companies have clean slates, mind you, but they're working towards reform.
The Global Compact is helping to foster UN reform. The management culture in the business community can go along way in increasing the efficiency of operations within the UN system. There are many people at the UN with a lot of innovative ideas, but the UN is risk-averse and there's a certain level of management that is impeding these ideas from going through. Motivated by challenges from the business community, the Secretary-General issued a report that resulted in the formation of four working groups on procurement, investment management, human resources and facilities management.
The new governance model being used by the Compact is encouraging greater ownership by participants. It places an emphasis on greater transparency and accountability, and on clearer integrity measures being put in place. We're also working towards establishing a non-profit foundation to manage voluntary financial contributions to the Global Compact, as it remains outside the UN's conventional operating budget.
In the document resulting from this week's 60th session of the UN General Assembly, it is written that: “We encourage responsible business practices, such as those promoted by the Global Compact” - a significant statement. This is evidence of how we've been able to change the mindsets of state governments over the last four years by recruiting many influential companies based in their countries.
Some recommendations for future action within Canada include: meeting the Millennium Development Goals; increasing awareness of these principles amongst students and business leaders; and committing financial support to the Global Compact.
Overall, the future of the Compact isn't guaranteed, but in a number of ways we've been able to make a significant contribution so far.
For further information, you can visit our website: www.unglobalcompact.org .
Michael Hart: “ It's difficult to disagree with apple pie and motherhood”. However, I don't want the companies in which I have invested to participate in the Global Compact, because I think those resources should be put elsewhere. Companies have responsibilities to make profits for their shareholders rather than to pursue their presidents' pet projects. If you want to raise individual funds, the individual shareholders can make contributions. But the money owned by private corporations is the shareholders' money and it must be turned into profits.
Do they need to have a UN compact to tell them what to do? No, support should go to Transparency International, Freedom House and the like, which are private initiatives shining the spotlight on unethical behaviour that doesn't contribute to prosperity and growth. But behind the Global Compact is the assumption that corporations are evil, that unless there are rules in place to ensure they behave ethically, they will do what Enron does. Why should the whole corporate community be tarred by the feathers of Enron?
Corporations have done great things for global economic development and dealing with the scourge of poverty. If you go back 200 years, 95% of the world's people lived at subsistence level, the equivalent of $2/day or less. Today it's 15%. Many of the Millennium Development Goals have already been achieved because of the power of these corporations as a tool for economic development. A book entitled, “How the West Grew Rich” explains how corporations have been helping to overcome problems of domestic poverty by unleashing the power of private capital. This is what has made a contribution to poverty eradication - by unleashing private forces. Incredible amounts of money have been wasted in Africa on mismanaged aid projects, while the real developments have taken place in countries that have opened their markets to competition.
It's not public capital that has made a large contribution to poverty alleviation; it's private capital. Real development over the last 50 years has been a result of opening companies to private markets. Deng Xio Ping and Manmohan Singh are the real prophets of the 20th century. China is no longer a poor country because of Deng's opening up to market forces. The same goes for India . Until Singh became Finance Minister in the early 90s, bureaucrats at the Planning Ministry controlled economic policy. Now they're finally on the road to economic prosperity because the government has allowed private enterprise to operate in such a way to facilitate efficient production and distribution.
I teach my students to rethink what they've learned in high school and undergrad. Canada doesn't export or import anything. Companies trade, and they're responding to your and my decisions on a day-to-day basis. We've finally gotten over the fact that you need to protect people in order to create prosperity. Private corporations respond to demand in wonderfully efficient ways. It's your choice to drink coffee for 50 cents, or for $5/cup, It's your choice, and this is organized by companies in wonderfully efficient ways.
The idea behind Fair Trade coffee is nonsensical. It makes the assumption that coffee that's transported around the international economy is under-priced. How is the price of coffee set? It's set at the New York Stock Exchange between 9 and 12 in the morning. The laws of supply and demand work, and you can't set arbitrary prices. Price goes up if supply goes down.
In fact, coffee prices will go higher than the Fair Trade price ($1.26/lb.) If you buy a fair trade coffee at Bridgehead, you'll pay 25 cents more than you would for a regular cup. So what does it mean? It's fair to whom? To very few coffee growers in Costa Rica or elsewhere who've agreed to grow their coffee under certain conditions. What it does is discriminate between growers. When you spend an extra quarter on fair trade coffee, you're not spending it on anything else. Annually, the premium you've paid throughout the year for your fair trade coffee, say $90, is no longer available to buy t-shirts from Guatemala . This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way markets work. Why is the price of coffee low? Because there are too many growers in the world. Fair trade ultimately undermines well-functioning markets by diverting resources away from more productive activities.
It's hard to criticize some of it, but in the end it's muddle-headed thinking because it perverts the methods that have already proven to work well.
PANEL 3 - Q &A
Pat Mooney : Corporations do an abysmal job of technological innovation, and the best example is pharmaceuticals. Regarding international copyrights, it seems as though you're saying you're against patent laws because of their anti-competitive characteristics. But you often have governments intervening in the market place and creating a false monopoly. If you really want to have something innovative, the worst place to go is corporations. I do, however agree with you on the Global Compact that it's whitewash and doesn't serve its purpose.
MH: Some governments have better licensing mechanisms than others. There's probably a lot of room for improvement, but certainly this isn't critical to global prosperity and eradicating global poverty. The people who talk about market failure are often reluctant to talk about government failure.
Patents are difficult for someone who's committed to open markets, but they're a recognition that much intellectual property is private property. Patents are currently the most controversial as they provide the owner of the intellectual property with the exclusive right to exploit the benefits of that property for many years. Many of us wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for advances in pharmaceuticals produced by these companies.
MP: The Global Compact didn't originate from the UN; it was a response from the business community. If they didn't get any value out of it, there wouldn't be any participants. It's business driven. I agree with the importance of private sector in development, as they have been productively engaged in that area for a long time. The Shell Foundation's Kurt Hoffman outlines how the private sector could use official development assistance (ODA) flows more effectively than governments have been and in a sustainable way. You don't want to build a pipeline if the community's going to blow it up, so the corporation must be engaged with the local community. The important role of the Global Compact is that it can bring important spheres of expertise to industry, thus adding value to the bottom line.
Bill Ryan : What you're giving us is very functional, narrow and ideological thinking: perhaps economic democracy. Economics isn't above politics, for politics is where citizens are. Economics serves us and isn't the master. You don't talk about power, but so much of what goes on in the corporate world is about power.
Sara Kemp : I don't think there's a role for corporations in politics. You haven't talked about human rights. China , for example, is guilty of so many violations. Perhaps the Global Compact can be used for companies to come together to protect themselves from bad apples.
Metta Spencer: Corporations sometimes do things that are contrary to the public interest. I'd say the Global Compact is a start but it's not the answer to the structural change that's necessary. What we need is transparency. Moreover, there ought to be representatives of other interests on the board of every corporation.
MP: Human rights is a critical challenge for many companies and the Global Compact can help provide companies access to the knowledge they need.
MH: Give me a break: I do have broader views on the role of the market. A well functioning market is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a well functioning civil society. We also need good governance and social trust, which are all essential to a functioning society. I was called to talk about the particular role of one entity - the private corporation. We have a reasonably good set of laws, high levels of social trust and social capital. In many countries it's the absence in social trust, not the power of corporations, that's the problem.
It's also important to distinguish between the power of corporations and of governments. Governments have power to coerce; corporations have the power to persuade. When corporations reach a certain size, they have the power to exert a certain amount of influence, but not as much as governments themselves. The power of the corporation is very different from the power of government, and confusion in that respect has led to some of the problems in the corporate social responsibility movement (CSR).
It's not businesses who should be pursuing human rights; it's a broader social and political responsibility, however they should be living up to human rights codes. I have a lot of trouble with the notion of positive human rights which portray a mindset that is antithetical to a functioning global economy.
On the issue of transparency: There's no company that's more transparent than any company that trades on NYSE and NASDAQ. “There really are no corporate secrets.” Having civil society representatives on corporate boards would change its function from a profit-seeker to one of governance. It's a misappropriation of a political agenda on a private corporation.
Morris Miller: Your whole debate is misdirected. You are right on the role of the firm in trade and investment if the condition of perfect competition always prevails, if there is good information and mobility of capital and labor. In the real world, however, these conditions do not exist, and certain market failures occur. Ninety percent of the global flow of investment goes to twelve countries. Who is going to go as a private entrepreneur into countries in Africa ? That's why we have agencies like the World Bank; they go in where others fear to tread because there's more than a corporate agenda in investing in these economies. Do you believe that we can rely on corporations for flows of investment in order to address severe problems of abject poverty?
MH: No way. No company will take the risk of investing in Zimbabwe . While I have worked in 40 countries, I have yet to do a project in Africa – nobody there wants to deal with any serious capacity developments. Corporations are not the solution; it's going to have to be governments.
MP : I didn't mean to say that governments don't have a huge role to play. A number of companies do go to Africa under circumstances that are not consistent with the principles of the Global Compact. But we are able to provide them with public sector access and link them up with local governments. These principles encourage them to go where they wouldn't have gone before, thereby sparking some significant investment which would not have occurred without their presence.
DISCUSSION GROUP 3
The group explored the topics of development, the elimination of poverty, security, governance, tied aid, markets, role of the private sector and the priorities for the different but inter-related ends as well as the most effective means of achieving them.
The editor has organized points made throughout the session under those headings.
Development
Development budgets have shifted from capital and economic development to human development. Development used to mean improving the economy and quality of life, not democracy. Some studies have shown that development occurs best along with democratization but countries may need different voting systems to respond to public needs.
Poverty
The greatest crime of our time is desperate poverty. The goal is to eliminate poverty in its ultimate form. The goal wasn't to alleviate slavery, but to eradicate it. Everyone does not have to have the same standard of living but there is a set of well defined minimum standards for human existence that should meet the objective of eradicating poverty. So many problems come from the distribution of wealth within a country
Overseas Development Assistance (ODA)
The 0.7% of GDP for ODA originated in a World Bank commission chaired by L.
Pearson. That level was supposed to allow the African countries increase their level of economic production by 6% per year. Now ODA is needed to supplement basic investment to protect social development such as health and education which would otherwise be much lower priority. Giving food to places where there are famines and extreme hunger destroys the farmers. Give them money to buy the food that's already there. Local people don't have money to buy it.
Tied Aid
Why don't the World Bank and other institutions realize that the main goal is poverty reduction and tie aid to countries so they take steps toward that goal such as increasing girls' access to school? Failed states should not get aid. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) won't give money unless the country deals with health, law and order etc, and it doesn't work. The current CIDA policy is not to give money to countries that have no governmental structure that can be responsible about distributing aid. There has been opposition to that approach.
This year's Human Development Index report recommended the elimination or gradual decrease in tied aid. Canada has moved in the right direction but not far enough by eliminating tied aid for commodities but not for services. Works until countries competing with us tie their aid.
Governance
Government is a blunt instrument, and the least developed of institutions. Governments range from brute force to some sort of moral authority and force of law. Democracies can only change government every few years and only through a blunt process. Even though they have a lot of power, it is difficult for them to use it well.
Government is the most precise instrument available: it allows a civil society and regulated capitalism, etc. You don't have that in many developing countries but the IMF won't give any money if you don't. Government and civil order are very important, and somehow we have to say to countries that they've got to develop a civilized environment. It can be difficult to determine good governance or what constitutes a functioning government. Democracy as a key component of development (never was a famine in a democracy). Things can be done in terms of nature of aid given as well as nature .of support itself.
The Canada Corps trying to create a model for democracy and should go to countries in parallel with aid.
Market
Put a high priority on market access for third world countries especially to Canada with all domestic political implications that this has. Trade/transportation of people is another story. When all you have to market is people, human trafficking becomes a critical issue
The minister of natural resources in Tanzania couldn't sell lumber, despite having access to modern technology because Kenya was undercutting his prices, and he was operating to maximize profits. So we turned his debt (his existing stock) into an asset This is still done everywhere in the developing world and it's getting us nowhere.
Investment
Very little investment flows through the UN which has a peripheral role except in setting policy priorities. How do we influence the greatest flow which is private capital? We seldom look at what Canada channels through the IMF and WB which is probably greater than what Canada distributes through conventional means
UN, World Bank, International Monetary Fund
The UN gets in the way of dealing with poverty. The General Assembly has very high minded views which will not let anyone tell individual countries how to deal with poverty. The UN does not have the same power that the British had in 1810/15 to force countries except the U.S. to get rid of slavery.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have evolved into development institutions and a lot of financial help goes into social welfare program and infrastructure.
There is a lack of awareness and understanding of the mechanisms and their outcomes.
GFIs are reforming and becoming more effective. One reason why Asian Tigers were successful was because they didn't take the advice of these institutions.
Representation is an important element of reform in these global institutions. Right now the people who contribute most money are those who control the direction that it goes and who gets money. What people are focusing on right now is for developing nations to have an active role.
Where to get the money?
The G78 should recommend implementation of the 'Tobin Tax' and suggest where to spend the proceeds. It will only become important if the U.S. implements it but they think it could slow down the global market.
If such a tax were applied in Canada , what would the public accept to reach 0.7 quickly?
The International Finance Facility pitched by the UK would administer an earmarked tax for development.
Don't try to identify a specific source as it might weaken our position. Today's surplus might vanish in two years, but we should urge the government to reach the target by 2015, if not before.
By 2015, the money involved could be 8 billion a year which frightens people.
Information
There are data on per capita income for each country but the critical issue is the wealth distribution within the country.
In the early days, UNICEF wanted reports by telegram of what was being processed every month.
Corporations
There isn't any form of governance that is able to deal with corporations that now extend around the world and are bigger than most nation states.
The UN learns a lot from working with business. Performance-based measurable impact-oriented way of working has helped the UN manage programs.
The fact that we're now creating a focal point for the private sector in each UN agency is going to be what grows the wealth for a new phase in development. Should we encourage companies to join the Global Compact?
Right Mix
Since each developing country is different, the challenge is to find the right mix of the many different instruments to promote the UN development agenda most effectively. While 30 years ago, external support provided 100% of the Bangladesh development budget, it now provides only 45%. Now issues such as market access for its garments are higher priority.
Key elements include enlightened leadership, a market focus, an attractive investment environment, a role in the global economy, and introducing a form of democracy gradually, but realizing that would take many years to address human rights issues.
Is food security more important than police security? What is the mix of domestic policy and intervention by external world to accelerate the distribution of wealth within countries? What is the right mix of public institutions and private enterprise?
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following resolutions were adopted by the plenary session of the Group of 78 annual policy conference , Internationalism Revitalized, or “Pax Americana”: W[h]ither Canada ? , Sunday September 18, 2005.
CBC Lockout
Owing to the importance of the programming of the publicly-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to Canada 's national and international life, the Group of 78:
1. Urges Parliament to end the lockout that has destroyed English-language programming. Parliament should subject the issues separating management and union to third party mediation and, if after a period of one month no agreement has been reached, then move to compulsory arbitration.
Outcome of the United Nations Summit and
Implications for the UN's Role in the World.
The Group of 78 congratulates the Government of Canada on its leadership role in ensuring the adoption by the Summit of the Responsibility to Protect, which enshrines the collective action of United Nations member states and is founded in clear, multilaterally agreed upon criteria for action. However, it expresses deep disappointment that the Government of Canada remains unwilling to commit itself to a clear and definite time-line for achieving the 0.7 percent of GDP for international assistance. Furthermore, there is still much room for the Government of Canada to push for improvements in the United Nations system. Therefore, we propose that Canada :
- Support with vigour the UN Peacebuilding Commission and contribute generously to the new Peacebuilding Fund.
- Work to ensure that the newly agreed - upon Human Rights Council has an effective mandate and composition and will be open, transparent and activist in the conduct of its functions.
- Urge the Government of Canada to exercise leadership in working with all states and other partners to achieve the Millenium Developments Goals.
- Reaffirm its commitment to a reformed and effective United Nations system through concrete support and substantial additional resource allocations to:
- UN peacekeeping and to the establishment of the proposed standing Police Capacity.
- The peacebuilding, reconstruction and humanitarian roles of the United Nations in post-conflict environments, and
- The harmonized development activities of United Nations entities working together at the national level in support of poverty eradication, and other national priorities and capacity-building.
- Work with other countries to ensure that the United Nations gives urgent priority to disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and small arms control.
- Press for further delineation of rules governing the legal use of force as an instrument of last resort, as a basis for collective security and within the framework of established treaties, and
- Immediately move to increase annual funding to the Canadian International Development Agency from the present eight percent to 16 percent in order to reach $6 billion a year by 2010, and thus achieve the internationally agreed target for foreign aid.
Institutional and Political Impediments to
Meeting the Environmental Challenges of the 21st Century
There is strong support for a quality environment in Canada : clean air, clean water and uncontaminated land. These are under threat. Doing what needs to be done is beset with obstacles that have to be overcome. These obstacles can be categorized under three headings:
- Inertia that is rationalized in the forms of skepticism, cynicism and sheer ignorance or apathy;
- Risk aversion that can take the form of accepting things as they are or only slightly modified, even if there is dissatisfaction with the current and future outcomes; this attitude is expressed as “better the devil you know;” and
- Vested interests on the part of producers and consumers that resist change as either costly or financially threatening to “a way of life.”
Recommendations for action must address the fact that these obstacles exist. Thus, inaction could be overcome by a shock event (not to be recommended, but for which preparations should be made), or by a public engagement campaign in which citizens examine the negative factors in the status quo and the positive aspects of change. By the same token, overcoming risk aversion calls for some form of publicity to clarify the extent and nature of not doing anything. Finally, overcoming the vested interest in the status quo can be addressed by regulation and incentives.
The two following resolutions elaborate the ways to overcome obstacles and grasp opportunities in the areas of nanotechnology and climate change.
Resolution #1: Identifying and Assessing High-Risk Technologies and their Application
Recent initiatives in some countries unfortunately suggest that the Kyoto Accord on climate change may not meet its goals, and therefore, new technologies must be developed that will help curb Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions without generating new risks. Although the G-78 agrees that all initiatives should be explored, we are concerned that policy-makers may adopt a technologically-myopic approach to issues that also deal with fundamental socio-political concerns. We are especially concerned that technologies such as nanotechnology may be imposed on society without a proper evaluation or societal debate. Therefore, we propose that:
1) The Government of Canada , as a matter of priority, join with civil society organizations to engage the Canadian public in a wide-ranging dialogue on the potential benefits and risks in the suite of new technologies often known as “converging technologies” (a.k.a. “technological convergence at the nano-scale” or “nanotechnology”), and that decisions related to future federal support for these technologies be dependent on the outcome of this dialogue; and
2) The Government of Canada propose that the United Nations establish an International Convention on the Evaluation of New Technologies (ICENT) with an attendant office and financial support.
Resolution #2: Climate Change
The conference noted with alarm that Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are continuing to increase in Canada despite our obligations under the Kyoto Accords. North Americans produce more GHG emissions in total than any other continent, and far more are produced at the per capita level in the US and Canada than anywhere else. The high level of CO 2 in the atmosphere, which had until recent decades remained below 240 parts-per-million (ppm), is already 380 ppm and rising at an unprecedented rate. Furthermore, the high level of CO 2 in the atmosphere will cause a considerable rise in the ocean level within this century, which will continue for hundreds of years thereafter with catastrophic results for many populous and fertile coastal areas worldwide.
Changes are needed at all three levels of government in Canada and in different sectors of the economy. Nevertheless, the conference was keenly aware of the human dimension of change and rejected the notion that governments, industry and citizens can address the challenges of climate change simply via technological means. Therefore, we propose, both immediately and post-Kyoto, that:
1) At the Federal level, in addition to the need for the investment in research, such as CO 2 sequestration, a variety of immediate steps are required. There is need for a major change in the proportion of vehicles on our highways, in particular the replacement of fuel-extravagant vehicles of all types. Although the Federal government does not control vehicle production, it can nevertheless accelerate the introduction of environmentally-friendly vehicles by manufacturers. A prime example would be to give advance notice to manufacturers of strong incentive measures to move forward, coupled with tax measures and other disincentives to continuing the status quo .
2) At the provincial level, governments across the country should authorize and encourage municipalities to introduce traffic congestion taxes. These can be set at a level that will reduce or eliminate rush-hour bottlenecks, which are so costly in terms of fuel consumption and pollution, and the resulting revenue should be used to subsidize public transit. This could be done through the use of transponders as is the case in Singapore . Municipalities should also be authorized to tax downtown parking lots, including a differential tax on cars arriving or departing during rush hours.
3) At provincial and municipal levels, many measures could result in reduced emissions in cities and lower levels of atmospheric pollution. These include such measures as eliminating building code obstacles to the use of energy efficient technologies such as solar-powered water heaters, and even mandating the installation of solar-powered water-heaters in new housing estates and incentives for retrofitting in existing neighborhoods. For the implementation of such measures, it is important the federal government not delay any further CSA approval of renewable energy devices. Zoning regulations should also be reviewed to encourage greater housing density and reduce the use of cars. Changes should be made to allow basement apartments, as well as to allow corner grocery stores where the population density makes them economically feasable. This would make for more energy efficient cities.
4) Establish on an urgent basis a joint federal –provincial-municipal commission to develop a detailed plan and timetable for the systemic changes that are required to enable Canada to meet the 50% reduction target it faces in the post-Kyoto phase.
Common Security or Global Military Dominance:
the Management of Outer Space
Resolution #1
Explanation: the aim of the first resolution is to recommend Canada 's leadership in starting a negotiation at the UN for a treaty (additional protocol) banning weapons in space and creating a regime of common security governing all military and civilian uses. The treaty would be based on the guiding principles of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty and, in effect, would “operationalize” those guiding principles. As an additional protocol, it would not “reopen” the original treaty so as to endanger it if the negotiation went badly. Note also that the procedure for establishing an Open-ended Working Group at the GA usually but not necessarily requires consensus. Based on the current voting pattern of UN member states, the overwhelming majority of states would support such a negotiation.
Resolution #1 on the Preservation of the Peaceful Use of Outer Space in the Interest of Mankind and the Establishment of an Open Ended Working Group on a “Space Weapons Ban”
Recalling Article I Para 1 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which provides that Outer Space is beyond the national jurisdiction of any state, that it should be used “exclusively for peaceful purposes” and “in the interest of all states and for the benefit of mankind as a whole”,
Welcoming the emphasis of all space-faring states on the importance of cooperation in the peaceful uses of Outer space,
Recognizing on the other hand the increasing unilateral military uses of space in support of terrestrial military operations,
Expressing its gravest concern about the development, testing and imminent plans to deploy weapons in space,
Underscoring the urgent need to provide safety, rules of the road and a code of conduct for satellite traffic as well as the need for non-interference with civilian satellites, national means of verification and communication satellites,
Expressing its deep regret about the lack of multilateral measures for the protection, safety and security of the peaceful uses of outer space in the interest of humanity,
Recalling the proposals of Member States in the Conference on Disarmament for a comprehensive regime of confidence-building measures in outer space and a ban of space weapons
Further recalling the study of the UN Expert Group on Comprehensive Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space
Welcoming the research and numerous recommendations of the scientific community on the preservation of the peaceful use of outer space
The Group of 78 recommends that Canada work with other states at the 60th session of the UN General Assembly:
- To establish an Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) with the mandate to negotiate a comprehensive regime of Common Security in outer space, including in particular an Additional Protocol to the Outer Space Treaty providing for:
- Outer Space as the “global commons” beyond national jurisdiction, recognized as the “common heritage of mankind” (CHOM),
- An express prohibition of the development, testing and deployment of any kind of weapons in outer space and anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons;
- Non-weaponization of space explicitly stated to refer to weapons only and not to legitimate passive military uses of space, such as “national technical means” (satellite surveillance);
- Transparency and confidence-building measures including “rules of the road” and a Code of Conduct for satellite traffic in general and specifically for non-interference with civilian satellites, national means of verification and communication satellites;
- A robust verification regime building for example on Canadian proposals for PAXSAT I and II (peace satellite) and comprising both multilateral and national means of verification.
Resolution #2 on a reference to the International Court of Justice
Underscoring the urgent need to prevent the weaponization of outer space (as set out in resolution # 1 above),
Stressing the need to clarify the legal issues relating to the preservation of the peaceful use of outer space,
The Group of 78 recommends that Canada work with other states at the 60th session of the General Assembly to:
- Request the International Court of Justice (ICJ) according to Article 96 Para . I of the UN Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the development, testing and possible deployment of any kind of weapons in outer space.
Resolution #3 on ending the NATO/NPT contradictions
Recalling that Article II of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT) is unambiguous in its prohibition on NNWS acquisition of nuclear weapons under any circumstances:
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Recalling that Article I of the Treaty is equally unambiguous in its prohibitions on NWS nuclear weapons transfers:
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
Recalling with grave concern that the 1999 Strategic Concept affirmed NATO's commitment to "maintain, at the minimum level consistent with the prevailing security environment, adequate sub-strategic forces based in Europe which will provide an essential link with strategic nuclear forces, reinforcing the transatlantic link" (NATO 1999, para 64). It noted that these sub-strategic weapons "need to have the necessary characteristics and appropriate flexibility and survivability, to be perceived as a credible and effective element of the Allies' strategy in preventing war. They will be maintained at the minimum level sufficient to preserve peace and stability" (NATO 1999, para 63).
Welcoming recent steps by other NATO members to rid their territory of such weapons,
Underscoring that the international community outside of NATO increasingly views NATO's nuclear doctrine and nuclear sharing arrangements as an impediment to the fulfillment of NPT obligations and a violation of the spirit and intent of the NPT,
Joining the call from Project Ploughshares, Pugwash, the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and many others for NATO to explain how the presence of tactical nuclear weapons in European Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS) parties to the NPT "for wartime use on board non-nuclear allies' dual-capable aircraft" complies with their obligation not to transfer control of nuclear weapons, and not to receive such weapons,
Recalling the previous efforts by Canada to initiate a discussion within NATO to amend the Strategic Concept of 1999 to remove its reliance on nuclear weapons,
Welcoming the recent steps by other NATO members to rid their territory of such weapons,
Recalling the unequivocal undertakings given at the 1995 and 2000 NPT review conferences to move inexorably toward the full implementation of Article 6 (disarmament article) of the NPT including through the fulfillment of “the thirteen steps”,
Noting with alarm the increasing reliance in U.S. military doctrine on the development of tactical nuclear weapons for battlefield use, and therefore on the “early” first use of such weapons,
Underscoring the urgent need to shore up the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in light of the failure of the 2005 Review Conference to reach agreement on a Final Document,
The Group of 78 therefore recommends that:
- Canada redouble its efforts to reopen consideration at NATO of the Strategic Concept of 1999 to ensure that it and all NATO member states are in full conformity with their obligations under the NPT; and
- Canada take the necessary steps to ensure that its close military cooperation with the United States does not involve any participation in the use of nuclear weapons.
Resolution #4) on the NPT Article 4 commitment to facilitate the peaceful uses of nuclear technology by NNWS
Noting with grave concern past and recent diversions to military uses of nuclear technology transferred for peaceful purposes, which diversions are contrary to the obligations of NNWS under the NPT,
The Group of 78 recommends that Canada :
- Explore other means of fulfilling the spirit of article 4 of the NPT through non-nuclear “alternative” technologies.
Resolution #5) No launch on warning policy for NWS
The Group of 78 reaffirms last year's resolution that nuclear weapons states should unilaterally implement a ‘no-launch on warning' policy in order to decrease the chances of accidental nuclear war.
Averting the risk of accidental or inadvertent launch of nuclear weapons
In order to reduce the risk of accidental launch of nuclear weapons, we call on the Canadian government, as a priority, to urge all states possessing nuclear weapons to adopt immediately a ‘no launch on warning' policy. This is a measure that individual states can take unilaterally, while cumulatively building mutually reinforcing steps.
Resolution #6) No Canadian Association with US pre-emptive strike strategy and ICJ reference on the meaning of “self-defence” in Article 51 of the UN Charter
Recalling the express prohibition in the UN Charter on the threat or use of force unless authorized by the UN Security Council in accordance with the Charter and international law or when acting strictly in self-defence in accordance with international law,
Noting with alarm the American national security doctrine providing for the “pre-emptive use of force” in circumstances clearly not involving self-defence as defined under international law and therefore constituting a clear violation of the UN Charter prohibition on the threat or use of force,
Noting also the increasingly close military cooperation between Canada and the US , including enhanced interoperability of their respective military forces,
The Group of 78 calls on the Government of Canada:
- To take immediate steps to ensure that such close military cooperation in no way involves or associates Canada with the U.S. pre-emptive strike strategy; and
- At the 60th session of the General Assembly to work with other states to request the International Court of Justice (ICJ) according to Article 96 Para. I of the UN Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion on the meaning of “self-defence” as set out in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Democratizing International Trade and Investment
Recognizin g that sustainable peace, security, and human development are all organically connected to one another;
Reaffirming the importance of Canada's existing formal commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and its International Policy Statement commitment to actively support private sector development in developing countries through business enterprise and civil society;
Recognizing Canada 's unique position in the world to lead the international community in working towards the eradication of global poverty; and supporting the Canadian Governments' action in debt relief for reform-minded heavily-indebted poor countries (HIPC);
Understanding the value of the UN's Global Compact Office as a primary organization facilitating and encouraging corporate social responsibility on a global level.
The Members of the Group of 78:
- Urge the Canadian government to devote at least 0.7% of its GDP to Official Development Assistance (ODA) by 2010 through whatever mechanisms are necessary in order to do so, including publishing a comprehensive plan on how to achieve this target and creating means to ensure its compliance, as well as effectively implementing its proposed “whole of government” approach to promoting global peace, security and development;
- Recommend that the Canadian government expand market access for developing countries through the removal of all tariff and non-tariff barriers preventing developing countries' full (bilateral and multilateral) access to the Canadian market, through the encouragement of other countries to take equivalent steps to remove such barriers, and through the negotiation of international agreements that create fair access to Canada for temporary workers;
- Recommend that Canada avoid any subsidies on exports which compete with exports from developing countries and encourage other developed countries to do the same.
- Stress the importance of a revitalized and strengthened UN system, including its capacity to partner effectively with both the business sector through private sector development and with civil society, to promote the alleviation of poverty. i
- Underline the importance of ODA in fostering good governance, namely transparency, accountability and democratic principles in less-developed countries;
- Urge the Canadian government to publish a detailed program for implementing its commitment to supporting effective private sector investment in developing countries that is consistent with their national priorities and sovereign decisions, including a meaningful governance framework, as well as promoting amongst the boards of Canadian corporations the adoption of the ten principles of the UN's Global Compact Office.
UN Study of a Group of Government Experts, “Study on the Application of Confidence-building Measures in Outer Space”, UN Doc. A/48/305, 1994
Appendix :
THE GROUP OF 78
The Group of 78 is an informal association of Canadians seeking to promote global priorities for peace and disarmament, equitable and sustainable development, and a strong and revitalized United Nations system.
It began in 1980 when a small group including Andrew Brewin MP and Peggy Brewin, Murray Thomson of Project Ploughshares, Robert McClure, former Moderator of the United Church , and King Gordon, formerly of the United Nations Secretariat, drafted a statement on how best Canada could contribute to the building of a peaceful and secure world. In November 1981 that statement, Canadian Foreign Policy in the 80s, was sent to Prime Minister Trudeau. It was signed by 78 Canadians — a group of 78.
The statement set out three inter-related objectives:
- removal of the threat of nuclear war;
- the mobilization of world resources to achieve a more equitable international order and bring an end to the crushing poverty which is the common lot of the majority in the Third World ;
- the strengthening and reform of the United Nations and other global institutions designed to bring about a pacific settlement of disputes, foster international cooperation, promote the growth of world law and the protection of basic human rights.
That was the beginning of a dialogue between the Group of 78 and the Canadian government. In the following years, members of the Group discussed, and made their views known, about new issues facing Canada in international relations and their implications for the central, and universal, objectives of policy already mentioned.
The Group of 78:
- meets in conferences to consider needed changes in foreign policy, seeking consensus on recommendations to government;
- produces publications on conference findings and special issues;
- publishes a web site www.group78.org
- organizes lunches with invited speakers.
THE GROUP OF
78 - FOUNDING MEMBERS |
|
|
|
|
Margaret Atwood |
Walter Gordon |
John Meisel |
Donald Bates |
Roger Guindon |
Brian Meredith |
Pierre Berton |
James Ham |
Joanna Miller |
Florence Bird |
Richard Harmston |
Michael Oliver |
Elisabeth Mann Borgese |
Jacques Hébert |
Archbishop A. L. Penney |
Andrew Brewin |
Gerhard Herzberg |
Lucie Pépin |
Tim Brodhead |
John Holmes |
Beryl Plumptre |
General E.L.M. Burns |
John Humphrey |
Nancy Pocock |
Rita Cadieux |
George Ignatieff |
John Polanyi |
Thérèse Casgrain |
Heather Johnston |
Escott Reid |
Maxwell Cohen |
Kalmen Kaplansky |
Clyde Sanger |
Irwin Cotler |
Hugh Keenleyside |
Archbishop E.W. Scott |
Marion Dewar |
Roby Kidd |
Frank Scott |
T.C. Douglas |
David Kirk |
Marian Scott |
William Epstein |
Anton Kuerti |
John Sigler |
Gordon Fairweather |
Renaude Lapointe |
Adelaide Sinclair |
Geraldine Farmer |
Margaret Laurence |
David Smith |
Eugene Forsey |
J. Francis Leddy |
Maurice Strong |
Ursula Franklin |
Clarke MacDonald |
Murray Thomson |
Northrop Frye |
David MacDonald |
Bruce Thordarson |
E. Margaret Fulton |
Donald MacDonald |
Norma E. Walmsley |
Sylva Gelber |
R. St. J. MacDonald |
Patrick Watson |
Alfred Gleave |
Gregory MacKinnon |
Hellie Wilson |
James George |
Yvon Madore |
Lois Wilson |
Paul Gérin-Lajoie |
Robert McClure |
Gregory Wirick |
Maynard Gertler |
Dennis McDermott |
Diana Wright |
J. King Gordon |
Peter Meincke |
|
