Terrorism and Nuclear Weapons Abolition: Peace Community Responses
Presentation to Canadian parliamentarians participating at the NATO-Parliamentary Assembly in Ottawa, October 5, 2001.
Remarks by Robin Collins (Steering committee member, Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons; member of the United Nations Association in Canada)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to speak briefly by outlining some of the responses of members of the peace movement in light of the events of September 11. What direction might this point Canada towards as a NATO member? And how is our response to the terrorist attacks relevant to the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons?

To begin, I think it would not be an exaggeration to say at the top that virtually all peace activists, and certainly those within the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, have condemned the terrorist actions of last month within the United States. Perhaps that is self-evident, but nobody should expect any less of the peace community.

Specific recommendations for policy and actions followed from the terrorism, and those proposals have been more varied, although there has been a great deal of consistency in this area as well.

The Canadian Council of Churches, together with Ernie Regehr of Project Ploughshares, cosigned a letter to the Prime Minister. In it they emphasized that any effort towards the eradication of terrorism requires due process under the authority of the United Nations and Security Council. Just as there necessarily must be an unambiguous effort to bring the perpetrators to justice, so the insertion of an international dimension to the trial would also be appropriate. We need to look also at the conditions that nurture terrorism, they argued, but without in any way justifying the terrorism.

Describing what took place in New York and Washington as a "war" misrepresents an act of terror, even one of September 11’s magnitude, but also channels the response down a predictably more dangerous avenue of retaliation and vengeance, and so may avoid justice as the primary objective. The answer to terror is justice, not revenge, as difficult as that can be. As the Canadian Council of Churches note in their letter, broad military attacks are not appropriate, and "police action, including any military support for such action, must be lawful. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done." Similarly, Senator Doug Roche stated in his speech to the Senate on September 18 that, "at the very least, any military response must be limited to the least possible damage...We must never approve military strikes that have the effect of killing innocent people or triggering a humanitarian catastrophe."

Some of the "war-talk" has seemed to have dissipated, (NATO refers now to the “fight against terrorism” not the “war” against terrorism) and hopefully that is the result of cooler heads and possibly also the fruit of multilateralism and consultation. However it is still uncertain what the response will be, and what the response to the response will be. A poll in the current issue of Time magazine indicates that while 64 percent of those Americans polled presently supported "the use of US ground troops in Afghanistan", a similar number (63%) thought that US military action would likely result in "another terrorist attack on the US in the next 12 months". We are grateful that three weeks of consideration have been allowed to pass. We are grateful too for words such as those of Prime Minister Chrétien recently, when he said that "At this moment, we're not talking about a war. We're talking about a campaign against terrorism and we're working on improving our institutions to make sure that we detect the people who are causing terrorism."

The World Federalists of Canada have also emphasized the need to implement the rule of law and to seek multilateral solutions. A more thorough international response to terrorism, they note, would be to strengthen the nascent International Criminal Court, an institution that is expected to be established in a year or two, at the present rate of ratifications. The ICC "will be a permanent and independent tribunal, which will prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide", and would be a particularly appropriate instrument for charging and prosecuting non-state actors, such as terrorists acting outside of the direct authority of governments that may or may not knowingly harbour their activities. The Group of 78, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace and others have called for the International Criminal Court process or the setting up of a special court, perhaps along the lines of the Rwanda and Balkan tribunals, to arrest, try those suspected of perpetrating the recent attacks, and then prosecute those found guilty.

The United Nations Association in Canada also drew attention to the importance of adherence to the existing international legal framework, and eschewed the rush to judgment that some governments have evidently contemplated. "Massive retaliation which would target innocent civilians", UNAC argues, is not what is needed -- an appropriate response is not to offer a "blank cheque for quick or unrestrained military action". Once the Security Council has been seized by the issue, as it has been, the UN Association notes, unilateral or group retaliation or vengeance is not mandated as a response to global peace and security concerns. And certainly the terrorism campaign is being offered up at the United Nations as a global campaign against terrorism.

At the United Nations this week, Secretary-General Kofi Annan made important statements that called for multilateral solutions to global concerns over terrorism. He also reflected on what actions states need to fulfill in order to reduce the terror incarnated explicitly in the threat of use or use of weapons of mass destruction. "It is hard to imagine how the tragedy of 11 September could have been worse," he said. "Yet the truth is that a single attack involving a nuclear or biological weapon could have killed millions...[and it cannot be ignored that such] a weapon could be delivered without the need for any missile or any other sophisticated delivery system".

There is an appropriate response to risk by terrorism -- from state or non-state actor – and as a start that is to ratify all twelve international terrorism legal instruments, as Kofi Annan outlined, but also "to strengthen the global norm against the use or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This means [and particularly relevant to our NATO and United Nations commitments and obligations]: redoubling efforts to ensure the universality, verification and full implementation of key treaties relating to weapons of mass destruction" and tightening controls on export of their technologies.

These approaches to terrorism, it can be said, are in a manner that peace activists can and do heartily embrace.

It is also highly significant and comforting to read from the presentation made by Canada's Ambassador to the United Nations, Paul Heinbecker, yesterday, October 4th. Canada, the Ambassador stated, will ratify the 2 remaining anti-terrorism conventions not yet ratified by this country -- those against terrorist bombings and against the financing of terrorism -- and as well move on the draft Convention against nuclear terrorism.

But he also insisted that success against terrorists requires cooperative action, a significant but not the sole component of an appropriate response. We need also, he stated,

"to work together to strengthen the global norms against the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. Let us enhance the non-proliferation regime by ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, expanding the Missile Technology Control Regime and proceeding to conclude the Biological Weapons Protocol...Let us ratify as well the statute of the International Criminal Court and universalize the Ottawa Convention on Landmines…”.

And he underlined:

“Let us recognize that à la carte multilateralism will not make any of us safer. Clearly strong multilateral cooperation in fighting terrorism is necessary."

These are the messages we all needed to hear, and we can be very proud that our UN Ambassador actually made them explicit yesterday. Our messages to you and through you to other NATO parliamentarians then would include the need to bring the remaining perpetrators of last month’s terrorism to justice. This requires:

The application of multilateralism, not unilateralism, and a measured response, not a blunt bludgeon. Respect for the rule of law and for the United Nations Charter; Assurance that the “necessary means” are also the appropriate means – that requires that we pursue the least violent course of action, and respect the principles of necessity, proportionality and discrimination. Development and exploitation of existing -- or ad-hoc -- legal tribunal instruments: This means prosecution of criminals through application of criminal law. It means avoidance of placing the world on a war-footing or towards an escalation by disproportionate retaliation or for vengeance. Let’s see the development and implementation of multilateral terrorism conventions and protocols. There is surely also a role for Canada in seeking the complex diplomatic channels through to the government in Afghanistan. This is in order to offer evidence, and to enable the apprehension of suspects for their extradition to an appropriate country where a fair tribunal can be set up. Let’s also press for including terrorism within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Let’s redouble our efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction through implementation and ratification of existing arms control vehicles and establish a NATO task force to fast-track us more quickly towards a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

How better to honour the memory of the many thousands of innocent victims of terrorism from three weeks ago but through the tone and comprehensiveness of Canadians’ measured response. And let us work so that Canada’s allies within NATO can come to share this vision.

Thank you.