| Canada Should Oppose Proposed Pentagon Nuclear Strategy |
|||
| WFC Press Release, March 2002 | |||
| A leaked Pentagon document must be of urgent concern to the international community as it is nothing less than a radical blueprint for dramatic changes in how the United States develops and deploys nuclear weapons. The report, the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), proposes to widen the circumstances thought to justify a possible nuclear attack; it expands the list of countries considered potential nuclear targets, and calls for new testing and for the development of new nuclear warheads designed to "reduce collateral damage.” The Review is a major rethinking of American nuclear doctrine. The status of the report is unclear but Canada's Foreign Minister Graham warned that the United States would be "going down a very dangerous slippery slope" if it were to adopt and follow through on the NPR's proposals. The New York Times found the document to be so dangerous as to pen an editorial with the title "America as Nuclear Rogue.” What is new and troublesome about the report is that the United States might now be openly moving in the direction of using nuclear weapons in local conflicts and in response to non-nuclear attacks or in retaliation against what are called "surprising military developments.” This would, of course, signal a major reversal of a longstanding trend of relegating nuclear weapons to the category of "weapons of last resort.” In April of 1999, the Canadian government, in response to recommendations from Parliament's Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade stated that "Canada will continue to resist any movement to validate nuclear weapons as acceptable currency in international politics". That is precisely what the Pentagon proposes to do -- and we are required now to speak up in vigorous opposition. Internationally, such a revision of nuclear weapon deployment strategy would severely prejudice the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). This treaty, long the major vehicle for discouraging non-nuclear weapon countries from going nuclear, is reinforced with what are called negative security assurances. The nuclear states have pledged to never use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear NPT parties as long as they continue to eschew nuclear weapons. This pledge would be severely compromised by the U.S. following through on the Pentagon's proposals. The subsequent uncertainty would wreak havoc in the lead up to the 2005 NPT Review Conference, with startling implications for global nuclear proliferation. Lowering the nuclear threshold by calling for development of nuclear weapons that would be easier to use goes a long way toward legitimizing the “first use” of nuclear weapons and encouraging others to think likewise. The last thing the world needs is to blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons. The recent Pentagon proposal raises serious questions about the real motivation behind U.S. plans for concurrent reductions in the size of its nuclear warhead arsenal. If the Nuclear Posture Review plans are implemented, the US will have slipped further back from its NPT promises, which include a commitment to "reduce the political legitimacy and status of nuclear weapons in order to contribute to the goal of their progressive reduction and eventual elimination." Canada supports this NPT objective and should therefore oppose U.S. implementation of the proposed Nuclear Posture Review. |
|||
|