In nuclear disarmament, a strong position from Trudeau may be against Canada’s best interests

WASHINGTON – Canada was absent from negotiations on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons adopted at United Nations headquarters last summer by 122 countries.

Granted, none of the NATO member nations adopted it. And with the exception of the Netherlands, no NATO members attended the talks, possibly due to objections from nuclear powers like the United States. Not to mention the treaty, which would theoretically lead to the destruction of all nuclear weapons, has yet to be ratified.

But even so, for some Canadians, the absence of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government represents a disturbing, if pragmatic, departure from Canada’s past as a leader among “middle powers” in global disarmament efforts.

“What is needed is political leaders to have courage,” Erin Hunt, an expert at the Forum on the Arms Trade and a disarmament advocate, wrote in an email. “I hope that Prime Minister Trudeau finds his courage soon.”

Canada is legally obligated to adopt the TPNW as part of its commitment to the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, Hunt wrote. But beyond its legal obligation, “Canada has a long history of supporting humanitarian efforts to limit the harm caused by indiscriminate weapons,” she said, adding that the government’s current stance “is not in line with our history.”

That history happens to have as one of its most prominent figures the late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau – the current prime minister’s father.

Justin Trudeau has taken a noticeably softer stance on issues of nuclear disarmament than his father, noted Paul Meyer, a former Canadian diplomat and international security expert. He speculated that Trudeau’s choice to “avoid” the nuclear realm may be a conscious attempt to tread a different path from that of his father.

Or it could be something more pragmatic.

Canada historically has been a leader among middle powers by virtue of its formal stance in favor of nuclear disarmament, Jez Littlewood, a professor at the Carleton University-based Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, said. But the country has more than just nuclear interests at hand: interests like trade, diplomacy and defense.

“I think history points to a much more practical approach from the Canadian context,” he said, “which is a recognition that nuclear disarmament will occur over a fairly long period of time, and ultimately it comes down to the nuclear weapons-possessive states having to make those decisions in that direction.”

Though the elder Trudeau made it clear that Canada wouldn’t pursue nuclear weapons of its own, that pursuit had never really seriously been on the table, Littlewood said. So in that sense, “I don’t think Pierre Trudeau was that groundbreaking” in the nuclear realm.

But if Canada chose to sign on to the TPNW at this point, it would indeed be significant, Littlewood noted. It “would signal that a major Western state is supporting this treaty, and that Canada will presumably then work within NATO to try to get NATO to shift its reliance on nuclear weapons as part of its doctrine,” he said.

It would also risk a “major rupture” in Canada’s relations with allies like the U.S., he added. And even if this newest treaty were ratified – “and that’s a big ‘if’” – it would only bind the states that sign it. And based on statements like those of United States and other world leaders, TPNW signatories almost certainly won’t include nuclear weapons-possessing states.

“There’s only so much effort and influence countries like Canada will have on getting the United States or France or the United Kingdom – to name just its closest allies – to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles,” said Littlewood.

Ultimately, he said, “that has not occurred, and it’s not likely to occur within the next few years.”