Arms Reductions with Security
(Summary)

A Summary of the
Official Opposition Minority Report on

Canada and the Nuclear Challenge

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
December 1998

Whether we like it or not, Canadians today live in the nuclear age. Nuclear technology is a reality and at least the knowledge of how to construct weapons based on that technology cannot be wished away. To talk of ``eliminating" nuclear weapons, as does the Majority Report, is meaningless. Instead what the debate must focus on are balanced and verifiable arms limitations and reductions that preserve and safeguard security.

The Official Opposition expects the government to express its support for prudent nuclear arms reductions by countries that possess them - but with some important conditions. The most important of these include:

• First, such reductions should be balanced and verifiable, and contribute to peace and security. This will not be possible unless the government's position reflects a realistic appraisal of the emerging 21st Century world.
• Secondly, nothing should be done that could undermine the security of Canada and its alliance obligations. This means that any lobbying by the government that would destabilize NATO relations, or further jeopardize Canada's shrinking credibility within the Alliance, should be avoided.

Insofar as the Majority Report reflects these principles, the Official Opposition supports it.

However, the Committee's Majority Report is pervaded by deeply misguided assumptions in almost every section. Emphasis is placed on the need to ``eliminate" nuclear weapons and to abandon NATO's reserved right of first use in self-defence. Perhaps most dubious of all is the unfounded claim that the world is much more stable and secure today than was the case in the Cold War, and therefore more conducive to elimination of nuclear weapons. For this and other reasons it is necessary for the Reform Party to dissent from the broad conclusions of the Report.

I. Balanced, verifiable reductions vs. ``elimination" of nuclear weapons

The Majority Report also refers repeatedly to a goal of moving toward the complete ``elimination" of nuclear weapons. It thus reflects longtime unilateral disarmament activist Douglas Roche's wish that our work as a Committee be ``very sharply focused on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world." This is unrealistic, since it fails to appreciate the complex reasons which may lead states to acquire nuclear weapons in the first place.

Canada should certainly continue to support measured and judicious arms control, both in terms of prudent and balanced reductions of existing nuclear arsenals (for instance, as in the START I and II Treaties between the United States and Russia), and in terms of efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries which do not already possess them (such as through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime). However, such arms control initiatives should not be pursued without giving due regard to the general level of stability and conflict in the international system, and the capabilities possessed by potentially hostile states.

II. Canada and NATO

Even though Canada does not itself possess nuclear weapons, our country has always relied on the nuclear protection afforded by NATO. It has always been a nuclear armed alliance and Canada has been a member from day one.

NATO's Strategic Concept of November 1991 clarified the role of nuclear weapons in post-Cold War allied strategy. This Strategic Concept was endorsed by all the allies including Canada. It pledges the Alliance to maintain ``adequate nuclear forces" to deter aggression, particularly from states possibly employing nuclear, bacteriological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.

In keeping with the changing role of nuclear weapons in NATO strategy, however, Alliance members have been able to implement substantial nuclear reduction measures without weakening its defensive posture. (These include the START I and II Treaties and major cuts to NATO nuclear forces in Europe.) These measures are extremely significant, and they preserve a prudent, minimum level of nuclear capability. Canada has supported this approach in the past and it should continue to do so.

As all members of the Committee know, Canada's own limited defence effort has already seriously undermined the country's standing and influence in the Alliance. If Canada were to engage in irresponsible rhetoric on the nuclear issue, its credibility would be even further eroded. As Parliamentarians responsible for helping to ensure the security of our country, we must assess and analyze the international situation in a realistic fashion. We should avoid the temptation to engage in dilettantish posturing whose harm could be incalculable.

Conclusion

The evil lies not in nuclear weapons themselves, but in the potential use (or threatened use) of such weapons by hostile states, rogue states, or terrorist organizations, which see advantage in destabilizing the present international order. Nuclear weapons in the hands of democratic and peaceful powers remain, as they have always been, an insurance policy against the unforseen.

This statement summarizes the Official Opposition's full Minority Report, given that the Committee did not allow the Reform Party to append it in its entirety.