Meeting with Ambassador Rivard, Canadian Mission to the UN
Canadian Voice of Women for Peace 5 Mar. 2013 met with Ambassador Rivard, Canadian Mission toUN and raised the following questions:
1.You may recall that for the past two years the VOW delegation has raised with you the issue of increasing the capacity for non-violent conflict resolution at all levels. You have indicated there was no money to support an exploratory meeting with interested NGOs. Efforts at the UN related to mediation are slowly moving forward, we understand. Mediation is an important area in which women could engage under the specifics of Security Council resolution 1325.
We would appreciate an assessment of progress in this matter in all its aspects.
2. SC res. 1325 requires the inclusion of women in the larger basket of the prevention of conflict. This obligation is much neglected.
What systematic efforts are being made to overcome this failure to follow through?
3.The longstanding interest of Canadian Voice of Women for Peace in non-violent resolution of conflict moves us to reiterate at this CSW our call for the abolition of war. The gross impact on women and children of militarism and its system should be enough to condemn this security approach to the shelf of history — like the abolition of colonialism, slavery, apartheid, dueling, and the broad, formal rejection of capital punishment. Although the Charter arrangements of Chapter VII were, we understand, included to gain the acceptance of membership of the original signatories to the Charter, it weakens and undermines the provision in the Charter calling for the exhaustion of all other methods to de-escalate conflict. It is in the common interest of humankind to require the full and early application of Chapter V1 with or without Charter reform .
How might there be real progress to this end?
4. Canada’s interest in the abolition of nuclear weapons has been positively expressed over the years. But Canada’s support of NATO’s nuclear posture suggests the normalization of NATO’s possession and threat of first-use of these omnicidal weapons. There is very strong civil society support for talks toward achieving a treaty completely banning these weapons; alternatively, towards achieving a series of agreements to the same end. Canada has been urged to convene a meeting of like–minded states to seriously accelerate this objective, including its own adoption of similar motions (2 June 2010 in the Senate, 7 December 2010 in the House of Commons) to move forward on this essential and promising process.
We are pleased that Canada supported the 2012 UN First Committee resolution cosponsored by Norway, Austria and Mexico, which called for the establishment of an open-ended working group to work for three weeks in 2013 in Geneva “to develop proposals to take forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations.” The resolution specifically called for “the participation of international organizations and civil society.”
What steps is Canada taking to fulfill this resolution? When will the meeting be held? What proposals will Canada be presenting? Will there be a Round Table in Canada in advance with civil society to develop proposals? (This is of special interest.) What arrangements will be made for civil society funding to enable its participation in this meeting?
5. Congratulations to Canada on its success as lead sponsor with the FMCT resolution A/C.1/67/L.41/Rev.1 (A/RES/67/53) Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. We appreciate that Canada has done a huge amount of work on this over many years. Progress here may enable a treaty over the next few years.
How is the implementation of the resolution proceeding?