WRS6. Ann Swidler on Africa NGOs

Posted on May 3, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

WRS6. Ann Swidler on Africa NGOs

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: WRS6
Panelists: Ann Swidler
Host: Metta Spencer

Date aired: 9 December 2020
Date Transcribed: 13 March 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

No, it shouldn’t be unlisted. Well, doesn’t matter now, because I don’t have any audience. But maybe I shouldn’t be that public. Anyway, it’ll be public in the long run when I edit it, which is probably what I need to do anyway. go now let me mute that. Now. Okay, so now we can start. Hi, Ann. How are you? Ann Swidler, you’re in Berkeley, California.

Ann Swidler

Yeah.

Metta Spencer

Yes, indeed, in Berkeley, my own stomping grounds. Wonderful. Now, I, somebody may join us in a minute from Burundi. But in the meantime, you can tell me about what you’ve been doing in Africa? Because I know you still keep going there —

Ann Swidler

I didn’t go there this past summer. I haven’t been there in over a year because of the Coronavirus. I’ve been touring to different projects; I was doing a project on religious congregations and chiefs. And that’s sort of the core of my interest. Because I had studied AIDS NGOs for a long time. And I had concluded that AIDS NGOs kept trying to sort of transform lives.

Metta Spencer

What’s GO?

Ann Swidler

I said NGOs, nongovernmental organizations, I had been studying those. And I had concluded that they kept coming in trying to transform the lives of local people, without any lasting result. And so, you know, they would come in, they would do their projects, they would try to create a democratically elected committee to govern a village or to decide on women’s rights or something. And then the minute their money went away, everything they had been trying to accomplish, also went away. And what I noticed is that the institutions that sustain themselves, in lives of regular people were religious congregations. And their people gave their own money in order to keep their religious congregations going, and were hugely affected by the authority of their pastors or sheikhs, leaders of those congregations, and by chiefs, who also have very few legal powers, but have decisive social powers in their own villages. So I started trying to understand their authority and how that works, and how those why those institutions sustain themselves. And the kinds of institutions that we right-hearted liberals try to… import don’t sustain themselves. So … given that institutional crises seem so important in the politics of the rest of the world. It seems like a good moment to be trying to figure out how you get robust, effective institutions…

Metta Spencer

So, it’s really a pity that this pastor isn’t with us now, because he is… apparently a Protestant minister in Burundi, and he goes to Finland for something. And… he has a number of… NGOs that do development work. And that’s what he wants to talk about, his development work. So it’s really a very interesting that, that you’re saying that this is exactly the thing that works. Now, are you saying that these are people who support their own activities? It’s… not foreign aid… they support, they pay for their own activities? And I don’t —

Ann Swidler

That’s my point. It’s the NGOs that don’t sustain themselves, that can’t support their activities that rely on foreign aid, and if they don’t get it, they collapse. And it’s the churches and mosques and chieftaincies that do sustain themselves. That’s what I meant. Yeah, that’s the ones that work are the ones that do that are locally supported. Yeah, the people themselves. Right.

Metta Spencer

Wow, that’s a pretty serious indictment of foreign aid, isn’t it? Well, critique, if you’re saying that that’s generally something you have to count on.

Ann Swidler

Yeah, I mean, I think, again, my focus is not really on what makes good foreign aid. So I want to back off and say, wait a minute, wait a minute. For example, Western-funded aid organizations (including Canadian organizations) support… They did boreholes, for example — Canadians really care about clean water, which is a very high priority. And they do a lot of development work — the global community, the wealthy nations, pay for basically almost 100% of the HIV drugs given in Africa, which are keeping millions of people alive. So, the idea that foreign aid is no good is — I would object completely to that… you know, increases in longevity, that they’re just the infrastructure, the healthcare is all dependent on foreign aid… I don’t think I would critique foreign aid. But I do think that the kind of fantasy that Western ordinary people like you and me might have, which is what African countries really need is someone to come in and teach gender equality in the villages, teach men to cook with their wives, come in and tell local… villagers form an NGO, do HIV prevention work… come in and… teach villagers how to have a democratic form of governance. I think almost every study (it’s not just my research, it’s every study of such interventions) shows they do not work, they do not take hold locally. And they do not become important local sources of political and social effective capacity that just don’t increase the capacity of people to get things they need or want. So they appreciate the money, that’s for sure. If… you do a training on preventing intimate partner violence, that’s the typical kind of thing they do. Everyone wants to come and do the training, because they get a little per diem as part of the training, and they might get lunch, which there is no small matter… to get chicken, for people who can’t afford to eat meat in any form, basically, ever. These are huge benefits, and they love them. But does it actually change ways of life, beliefs? The way people operate on the ground? And I would say, the answer is no.

Metta Spencer

Well, okay… what’s your next move? You want to shut these things down? I’m not mad, I think here, I would say, you’re concerned with us like, what, what’s the next move? What should we do? What should we do? What should we do?

Ann Swidler

I’m actually interested in saying, before we think about what we do, we should really understand how they operate. What is going on? How do local institutions actually function? What is it that pastors, sheikhs are doing? What is it the chiefs are doing? What are they act[ually] — not my stereotype “Oh, the chiefs are all men? So that’s bad” — But how… Why are they such central figures? … if you want to intervene, it’s… like if you want to cure disease in a body, but you don’t know anything about physiology. You’ve never studied the circulatory system, you don’t know what the lungs are, you don’t know what the heart does, then you say, “Oh, my God, this person is ill, we should take out the heart, that will be good, that must improve things, you know, the person’s blood is too hot, that’s what’s wrong… let’s just take out the heart. Well, I think our approach to foreign aid is a little bit like that, which is, we don’t see that it’s incumbent on us to actually understand the systems we’re so confident we have a right to change.

Metta Spencer

Okay, I’m willing to understand — now the problem is, what is it that I if I understood I would want to do I mean, I am so much a policy-oriented person, I have to decide for myself how I’m going to fix the world. And that’s all I do day and night, is trying to fix the world. And I certainly want to know how to do it right. But… don’t tell me “Don’t do anything? Well, because I might say to that —

Ann Swidler

Well, then… that’s your problem. I would say… you can’t do that… before you start trying to fix parts of the world that are very, very different from your world —

Metta Spencer

Okay. I’m willing to listen. I definitely want to understand and let’s say —

Ann Swidler

For instance, there is this sort of growing school in development studies, that — it’s got different names, but “developmental patrimonialism” or something that says something like, it’s better to work with the kinds of institutions that already exist on the ground and work sort of within their structures, encouraging them to evolve in fruitful directions, rather than trying to displace them. Right. Okay. So that’s, that’s the kind of advice I could —

Metta Spencer

I could absorb. I don’t, I’m not in a position to do much with it. But I can listen to that. And now, if I, okay, now, with that maxim, how would that? Could you advise any, anybody in particular about how they should change some practice, they’re actually doing?

Ann Swidler

Well, again, since I’m an academic, and I study things… I’m not an activist… an academic. So, I don’t spend my time trying to change the things I’m studying, I try to understand them. But I would say that you could ask a question like, are chiefs, for example, more effective in what they’re trying to do, which is get clean water for their communities, repair the local roads, so that their villagers can get to and from the market… enforce what we would call property rights, which are critical to the daily lives. I mean, if somebody steals someone’s gold… in the chief’s court I went to last time I was in Malawi, in 2019. An old woman’s dog had eaten a man’s goat. And he only had two goats. So, you know, this was a pretty serious threat to his livelihood. And it’s the chief’s authority. The chief hears this in the court, adjudicates and gets the woman to explain why she can’t keep her dog under control, and so forth. But if you wanted to transform people’s lives, you would… want to preserve their access to legal, effective legal protections. And you would want to be very careful, for example. So right now, there are attempts to privatize landholding, because you have these communal lands and people farm them, but the chief gets to decide who farms which piece of land. And so, no wonder the Chiefs have a lot of power… it means that, well, the theory behind it, which is a good one, I think, is that if one family has very few children, fewer offspring, they don’t need as much land and another family has more offspring and needs more land… so he can kind of reallocate within certain traditionally understood limits. If you come in, you have a landlord that privatizes all the land… there are almost certainly huge abuses. But the second thing is, wait a minute, if you undermine all the powers of the chief, where would people get their basic access to some kind of judicial system? Where would they get somebody to prevent the locals taking sweet potatoes out of their garden, which is what they eat? I mean, a garden isn’t a decorative thing. It’s your farm, basically. So, I think in all these ways, you want to think — when you’re making changes, we don’t have modern institutions to replace, effective modern institutions, to replace these existing local institutions. So, I think you want to tread carefully, before you go, altering ways of life. And then I think you do want to think about how some kinds of interventions work with local patterns. I’ll give you a positive example — when I got to know one chief very well, I met him originally, I guess in 2018, and he’s great. I was —

Metta Spencer

Are these hereditary, or how does a person —

Ann Swidler

There is a lot of negotiation within the ruling lineage about which particular individual will actually become the chief. And sometimes it’s a woman. It’s less common, but it can happen. And they often are kin. So, there’s a whole hierarchy of chiefs, and the local headman, the one who actually runs the village, is often part of the larger kin group of the higher-order group, a village headman who might be part of the kin group of the highest level, they’re called traditional authorities. But… I want to give you a positive example. I was talking with him. And I think he’s a very good chief, if you met him… he’s a tremendously sympathetic figure, I’ll just say, badly, physically disabled from childhood, chosen, I think, for his kind of wisdom. And, you know, if you asked — Why did this person who can barely drag himself from one place to another on a single crutch, and has to be lifted… to use the toilet, his wife has to put him on the bed, they don’t have toilets, but you know, they have pit latrines — Anyway, how did he become a chief, I think it’s, he really is very public-spirited. And I was asking him about his village. And he explained that the best thing that had happened were these village savings and loans. And these were originally sponsored by NGOs. They are local, sort of mutual savings associations, and they don’t require outside funding. Now, once they were promoted, and became common, people use them for everything. And it’s basically enforced saving. So, you come in, the local pressure that all these people are your relatives, and enforces rules… if you put in… the equivalent of 20 cents every week, and then in six months, you get to take out the equivalent of $20 and start a small business, that can really transform your life. So that’s the kind of intervention that can work. And it’s because it works with what are already local patterns, which is… people are highly mutually dependent. They do a lot of petty trading. So, there are opportunities for somebody, once they have a little bit of capital, they can buy a bushel of tomatoes, and then sell it as little groups of four tomatoes. On their front — they make a little thing out of sticks or kind of a platform, and then… as people walk by in the village path, they sell these little groups of tomatoes, and that can generate income that can stimulate growth in the whole village. So, if you understand local patterns, you’re more likely to be able to develop things that now — let me just, I know I’ve talked the whole time. And I haven’t said one thing that really is useful to you. But I’ll say one other thing, which is I’m puzzled by something, which is Malawi is totally deforested. There’s a huge shortage of firewood. And people do make charcoal from — they go into even protected National Forests, or wherever trees have grown a little bit. And they cut them down and they roast them to make charcoal, then they sell charcoal in little bags this big in the market. So, people can cook one meal. And yeah. And so why isn’t there — so I’ll just say that I won’t say the whole background, but I was there’s a nice restaurant in one town about two hours from where I stayed at that summer in a little rural area. And the guy who owns that restaurant showed me — he has an amazing stove, that is some kind of iron contraption, and you put one log in the bottom and it can boil gallons of water for hours on end to make the staple goop they need, a kind of porridge called “sima”… and it’s so much more efficient. So why isn’t there an NGO… using carbon credits to provide those very efficient cooking-stoves to lower, these cooking stoves or — one I saw it just uses a log, you just put a stick into it basically, on one end and it… however it’s designed, that thing burns incredibly slowly and efficiently. And it cooks a vast amount of stuff for almost no input. Since gathering wood is one of the major burdens women face, it’s the you know, it’s a really huge part of people’s… burdens and of course it’s ecologically horrible. So anyway, yeah. Okay, well, I don’t have a very good answer, that I’m not well enough informed, but I would say this.

Metta Spencer

I’ve heard that that deforestation is really largely attributed to the desire for, to making charcoal. And yet, it’s possible to create charcoal cooking stoves that are biochar, they call it, and you can gather things like leaves and twigs and stuff and use it and to make the charcoal and at the time… I understand that… if you look at the island of Haiti, and is it what the Dominican Republic that’s on the other side, you can see the line, if you fly over, you can see one side is green, the other side’s brown, it’s just that simple. And that Haiti is just ruined because of cutting trees for charcoal. But when there was this… catastrophe there several years ago, my contribution was to pay it, to give money to a fund that was making charcoal stoves that were supposed to be extremely efficient. There’s also such a thing as solar cookers… I don’t know how good they are. I do know that that supposedly using, and also there’s another reason for not wanting charcoal… fires indoors… there’s a huge problem with lung disease and illnesses caused by cooking inside. So, these biochar stoves are supposed to be partly anyway, a good solution. I don’t know whether it’s —

Ann Swidler

I just said what puzzles me is — I’ve seen absolutely no — I’ve never seen such a stove, except in this restaurant run by an Italian actually… And… on the ground. in Malawi, at least, there’s no evidence of such things. So, if NGOs wanted to do something really useful, providing things that fit into the ways of life people already have… you know —

Metta Spencer

That’s very useful information. In fact, what it will do is I will now start looking for somebody who knows more about charcoal, you know, by choice, but also try to figure out what these iron stoves they use almost no wood, because that just seemed like a miracle to me.

Ann Swidler

I saw this thing.

Metta Spencer

Well, what about the fumes?

Ann Swidler

So was this guy actually keeps it in it in a shed — people often cook outdoors. So, people, I mean, their houses are…. in Malawi, at least they’re these tiny mud brick huts, and they don’t cook in their houses. They cook outside their houses. There’s still a huge mess of smoke. I have to go it’s 10 o’clock. Yeah. Okay. It was very nice, great plan.

Metta Spencer

And I’m glad whatever accident happened… wonderful to see you and we’re going to get back to you.

Ann Swidler

Take care, dear.

Metta Spencer

Give me give my good wishes, everybody that I should distribute among.

Ann Swidler

Okay.

Metta Spencer

Thank you. Okay, bye.

WRS4. Steven Staples on Peace Quest

Posted on April 20, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

WRS4. Steven Staples on Peace Quest

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: WRS4
Panelists: Steven Staples
Host: Metta Spencer

Date aired: 7 December 2020
Date Transcribed: 20 March 2021 / 16 April 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar and Adam Wynne

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. And today I get to talk with my old friend Steven Staples.

Steven Staples

Hi Metta.

Metta Spencer

Hi, Steve, how are you?

Steven Staples

I’m terrific.

Metta Spencer

That’s great. Wonderful. Yeah. Okay, Steve, I should say who you are. First time I ever heard of you had just founded something called the Rideau Institute. So, you ran that for what about 10 years? Steve, was that about right?

Steven Staples

Well, the Rideau Institute was founded in 2006. And I was Founding President, a position I held for eight years.

Metta Spencer

Okay. I, it seemed very impressive. I remember you did wonderful things. I remember a story where there was a press conference at Parliament and some Minister or somebody came out in this hall and gave this big briefing and they left the mic on. So as soon as he left, you ran over and commandeered the microphone and gave your own little speech to the world, which I thought was terrific.

Steven Staples

Yeah, chutzpah goes a long way in Ottawa.

Metta Spencer

I remember thinking that, you know, you actually became kind of the spokesman for the whole peace movement in Ottawa, because you had an office and you looked real, and you can look convincing.

Steven Staples

It was never my intention, and I would never, I would never pretend to speak for anybody other than, you know, myself or my own organization. But during that time period, that was a hot time. You remember, 2006 was an important year, we found, at the Rideau Institute then — but also it was Stephen Harper’s first government. It was a minority government in 2006. And in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops were stationed, we moved from a largely peacekeeping role in Kabul to a warfighting standing with Operation Enduring Freedom. And we moved to Kandahar. So, it was a really important time for the peace movement effort in Canada.

Metta Spencer

Yeah. Actually, I don’t associate with you with Stephen Harper at all. Isn’t that funny? These are two different compartments in my mind. Anyway, it’s good to have you back here in Toronto, where you have changed hats or something. Because you no longer run the Rideau Institute. I guess you still have some affiliation with it. But the important thing that you’re doing now is something called Peace Quest, right?

Steven Staples

That’s right.

Metta Spencer

And that’s what we’ll talk to you about today. Because I think of all the people, all the guys organizing things in Canada, you have the biggest flair for being able to make something interesting and splashy and colorful and something people want to participate in. So I hope to learn a little bit from you’re really a master with this.

Steven Staples

I don’t know if that’s true. Maybe second only to this podcast, Metta.

Metta Spencer

Well, we’ll see that there’s a future for this, maybe. And you’re gonna make it make it into a big event because we need to know more about Peace Quest. And this is the time to talk about it. Peace Quest was at Kingston, Ontario. Give us a history of who started it. And how come you inherited a thing of that kind, which I don’t think you were even connected with at first, were you?

Steven Staples

Well, I’ve been friends with the Peace Quest folks for many years. So, you’re quite right. Peace Quest was launched by an amazing group of people as a community initiative in Kingston. And really, it was, the idea came in about 2012, around the centenary of the War of 1812. And you remember that we still had the Harper government at the time, and people were concerned that they were going to use the centenary as a way of kind of rewriting history and glorifying war. And they knew that two years later, in 2014, would be the centenary of World War One, which would be even bigger than the War of 1812. So, the bicentennial of those 200 years for the War of 1812 and 100-year anniversary of World War One. Anyway, the point being is that people want to say we want to take a role in this — and we want to say no, we don’t want this just to be a glorification of war, particularly the First World War, which was a terrible waste of life, you know very… no gain at from all. Warring families in Europe. All the wrong reasons. Terrible, terrible experience for millions of people who, who were affected and were killed. So, Peace Quest came about as a way to kind of counter that narrative. And it was based in Kingston. As I mentioned, there was other entities set up in: Peace Quest Cape Breton; there’s Peace Quest in Saskatchewan in Saskatoon; and there were a few others. And it had four themes. One was interfaith work, policy, the arts, and peace education. So those were the four main themes. And it ran its course. It did amazing work: it published books, it had concerts, sponsored youth work, just an amazing amount of work between the period of 2014 and 2018, which was the centenary of World War One. At the end, they said, well, you know, we’re kind of done. That was that was a great campaign. But you know, we built this wonderful thing, and maybe we could have somebody who would want to take it to the next stage. Now, I had been involved in, participated in their events, and I’d been collaborating with them. And so, through a very good community-based protest, I was asked to become the chairperson of a new version of Peace Quest. Slightly different, but built on the foundations, playing tribute to history with a little bit of difference now. And it’s called Peace Quest Leadership and Education Initiative. And it still has strong roots in Kingston, strong roots in the peace-education world, but it’s a different configuration, and we’re taking the work a little more broadly and exploring new areas. So. I’m really excited about it.

Metta Spencer

Well, yes, because I always thought of Peace Quest as kind of a local initiative. In other words, everything it did was in Kingston. It didn’t aspire to be an international movement or anything of that kind. Or even a Canada-wide one. As far as I know. It was a group of people in a local community who did amazing work. And I actually didn’t know very many of them. I think I know Jamie Swift a little bit. How many other people should I’ve known from that group? Are there other people that —

Steven Staples

There was an amazing group: [Sister of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul] Sister Pauline Lally was a co-founder with Jamie Swift. Michael Cooke was also involved. He was actually one of the original founders of Project Ploughshares. There was a lot of people from the education community: Judy Wyatt and Ann Boniferro, Bronek Korczynski, and many other people who were involved in the arts community, in the peace community, and in education. So Peace Quest has a very strong education role in it, which Metta, as you know, I did 20 years of hard labor in Ottawa, doing big policy battles. And then before that, I was an organizer for 10 years on the West Coast in Vancouver, where, you know, we would face off against nuclear submarines in Washington State.

Metta Spencer

It was your organization out there, because that was before we were acquainted. I knew your name, But, I don’t even remember what group you were running in Vancouver.

Steven Staples

Back in the 90s, it was a peace group based in Vancouver called End the Arms Race.

Metta Spencer

Oh, so that was, okay. Well, that was the main outfit in Vancouver, right? I didn’t realize.

Steven Staples

It was. It was a coalition of labor organizations and community organizations. And I had some wonderful, wonderful mentors and I was being trained. I was a much younger guy. And I had, it was a great experience. And then and then toward the end of the 90s, I was an organizer for Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadians. And I opened up the Council of Canadians’ first office outside of Ottawa, and it was based in Vancouver, where I was an organizer for the Council and set up chapters around the province and was part of the Canadian contingent that went to the big “Battle of Seattle” and the World Trade Organization in 1999.

Metta Spencer

Does End the Arms Race still exist as such?

Steven Staples

No.

Metta Spencer

Okay. But Peace Quest does. So, let’s go back to Peace Quest.

Steven Staples

Well, I think it’s an exciting time, actually Metta, because some groups in End the Arms Race…. I think it kind of dissolved in the early 2000s. I think it was probably about time. But as you see, organizations have lifespans, and they have life cycles. Movements have life cycles too. I mean, they may not disappear, but they wax and wane as conditions change. I’ve certainly I’m old enough now, to have seen the movement go… as you know, we all are aware that we could probably say we can see different times through the emotion of it. And actually, that’s one of the things that I’m very interested in now that I’m in my 50s. I’m a little bit of an older guy. How movements transcend from one generation to the next. It’s very important and the peace movement right now is going through a real moment, in terms of older leadership being transferred to the younger people and new peace groups are being set up now, which is really exciting, and I’m interested in education and working with young people to get their organization started, just like people helped me back in the 1990s and in the 2000s.

Metta Spencer

Wonderful. Well, okay, so how are you gonna go about that? I understand you have a regular job at York University.

Steven Staples

I’m actually a graduate student at York. And I do research there as well. And so yeah, so I do a little bit of work. I also work with other organizations in terms of fundraising and things like that. And do Peace Quest, so I’m a pretty busy guy. Yeah.

Metta Spencer

Yeah, yeah, sure. Well, tell me what your degree is and what you’re working toward as a graduate student.

Steven Staples

I’m doing a Master’s of Leadership and Community Engagement at the Faculty of Graduate Studies, but it’s kind of rooted in —

Metta Spencer

You could be teaching that course, man. And you’re taking that course?

Steven Staples

It’s, it’s awesome. It’s awesome that I am not the oldest person in the class. I’m second oldest at 54.

Metta Spencer

No, that’s not my point of view, it’s your experience. Because I bet you whoever’s teaching that course. You have, you could run circles around that person. I don’t know who that is. I apologize if I’ve offended. But your own background is quite stellar.

Steven Staples

Well, I’ve had a great opportunity to do a lot of things. But, it’s important, though, to have the theory, as you know, being an academic yourself, that’s the theory is important. And people like activists, folks like me, and many others. You know, there’s not many opportunities to do the book learning side of things. It’s really a question of trial and error.

Metta Spencer

Oh, come on. I’m not sure that I can remember anything from my academic career, that is particularly helpful for me now doing the work that I do. So if you can say that you’re really learning something that’s useful, please put me back in touch with my roots. (Steven chuckles) I don’t remember it with any great sense that, you know, I can refer to that as a source of, of guidance. Do you think you’re learning something that’s useful?

Steven Staples

Oh, absolutely. Yes, thanks. Sometimes I’ve been sitting there thinking, you know, as we as we’re going through the lectures, or I’m doing some of the readings around policy development, things like that, or different campaigns that I go, “Oh, that’s why when I tried doing that thing, that time, and it didn’t work.” And it’s like, had I read this, maybe I would have done things a little bit differently. So, there’s a great, great benefit to it. But also, there’s other benefits too, Metta. I’m learning with a wonderful cohort of 30 other millennials, early career professionals, many of whom are involved in other social movements, or in education, and the insight and things that I’m learning from the next generation of activists coming up, is… that’s just as useful to me as anything I’m reading in those textbooks.

Metta Spencer

Oh, well that’s really good to know. That’s very encouraging. Yeah, they’re playing to me. Maybe I can sneak in and sit in the back row someday? No, I bet you don’t even hold the classes, are you? You’re probably doing it all by Zoom.

Steven Staples

It’s all on Zoom, yes. So, which is quite interesting, because also learning the pedagogy of doing digital education is fascinating as well.

Metta Spencer

You were actually, a few months ago, I know you offered free lessons on how to Zoom. And you had quite a following. I attended one of them. I still have things I need to learn about Zoom, but at any rate you gave a great course for anyone that wanted to learn how to use it.

Steven Staples

Well, I did. In part, I was lying in bed one morning, with the silence of COVID all around us. It must have been late March. And I was thinking, what are we going to… what does all this mean for our work? You know, how are things changing? And what contribution can I possibly do in this situation when we’re all in lockdown? And so, I came to realize, as activists as a community of activists, we’re going to need to figure out a whole new way of engaging with our supporters, of talking amongst ourselves. Our essential work in peace is going to have to continue no matter what. So, I knew that we were going to have to learn a new language of digital communication in order to keep the movement going. Because movements must adapt to different circumstances. And I thought, this is just another moment of adaptation. And I think that I can probably teach people how to do this in order to keep the movement going. And I taught over 700 people through 25 workshops.

Metta Spencer

Oh, that was a lot more than I knew of, good. Well, you know what I think in some ways, it’s really a blessing. It is not just a useful way to make up for the fact that we don’t get to do the things that we’re used to. It’s not always better. The thing is, I have a much more transnational orientation, I think Canadian activism, by and large is rather parochial. Canadians only can think of, as far as the boundaries of Canada go, and don’t really think very much in terms of being a world leader, and taking on a movement or challenge that has to be global in scope. So, but I don’t think very Canadian-ly, and I do have a lot of friends in other countries, and I want to talk to them. So, the blessing of Zoom is it doesn’t matter. I mean, you could be in South Africa, you could be in Siberia, you could be in the middle of Australia, and just participate in a conversation, as we’re doing right now. As well as you, who are right here in town as you are. So that, I think, is going to nudge us into thinking beyond borders. And I don’t see why we haven’t already, but now there’s no excuse to just be limited in our perspective to a Canadian only. In fact, we don’t even have Canadian only, as you know, I just asked you whether End the Arms Race still exists. it was a major Vancouver and West Coast movement. And I the fact that I had to ask whether it still exists, is another indication of the fact that even various parts of Canada are not in touch with each other as much as we ought to be. So, you know, I don’t know that many people in BC and I don’t know them well, of course I wouldn’t have met them mostly. But, I think, we can meet now and we should, and this does definitely mean that we can go past some of the limitations that we’ve normally had meetings in person. And some people miss that a lot. Doug Roche wrote an article for Peace Magazine lamenting Zoom. As if poor Zoom was to blame. I mean, he said, he likes to hug people, and he can’t hug people on Zoom. Well, yeah, that’s a limitation. But everything else is pretty good. I think it works reasonably well; don’t you think?

Steven Staples

I think for anything there’s advantages and disadvantages, and it’s still way too early to be able to say definitively, you know, in a final word of whether this is good or bad. I can certainly think of some good examples. For instance, when I’m also part of a Toronto-based group called Hiroshima-Nagasaki Day Coalition, which does an event every year down at Nathan Phillips Square on Hiroshima day on August 6, commemorating the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Well, this year, they had to move everything online, because that’s just the way it was, it was COVID. But suddenly, we realized that, wow, this audience that we used to just have a few 100 people in the square was much greater now by putting it online. So the reach of that event suddenly became part of an international discussion, which I think was really exciting. However, there is a downside too – many of those people that I trained on zoom involved, not just donors and activists, but also organizers, people in organizations. And about eight weeks ago, I did a post-survey. So, it would have been the late summer saying: “What’s your experience been, has it been positive or negative? Do you feel that your community engagement has been impacted at all?” By and large, most individuals felt quite positive about it, they felt that things were okay. And they still felt connected. Most organizations also felt positive, but there was a definitive, greater sense of uncertainty about how effective it was. So the effectiveness of it has yet to be determined, I think.

Metta Spencer

Compared to what though? What would you…? I would wonder how to judge effectiveness anyway? I mean, you know, as a former professor, I remember, you know, planting a hell of a lot of seeds in my life, many 1000s of students that was planting seeds in, and once they were out of the course, I never saw them again. So, you never have the feeling of confidence that what you were doing really had any impact, or any lasting effect. That’s true for education in general, I think. But for Peace Magazine, which I have been editing for 38 years or something like that – nobody dislikes it, nobody complains about it. How much good is it doing? I don’t know. I think you anyway have to, sort of just do it out of faith that you’re doing the best, you know what to do? You think that it ought to make a difference and you have faith that maybe somehow you are making a difference. And of course, if you get any negative feedback, you take that into account. But I don’t really have any idea how I would know, whether even this what we’re gonna do today or doing today… Is that going to do anybody any good in the world? I don’t know. But let’s do it anyway. It’s fun.

Steven Staples

Well, I’m totally with you there, I’m not one to rule out yet. Doing a video is a tactic. You know, I’ve been involved in enough policy debates, and know that sometimes when we engage with trying to address an issue, and move it in a certain way, we have our own idea of how that’s going to unfold, how, what does, how is that story gonna play out? Right? And so many times, though, it doesn’t work that way. And you arrive at your endpoint, you achieve your win, but from a completely different direction. And you kind of go, “Oh Cool, I think we’ve won, have we won?” I mean, that’s one of the things.

Metta Spencer

Are we there yet, Daddy? (laughs)

Steven Staples

Things happen all the time in unexpected ways and we can’t predict it. And so sometimes you’ve just got to start different initiatives. But asking really good questions. And this is one of the things that I’m particularly interested in. I don’t like to leave things totally… [unclear audio]… I need to know that when I have such limited resources, and when you’re in Ottawa, when I was running the Rideau Institute, I had so limited resources, I didn’t have time to do things wrong, I really felt like I didn’t have the latitude to make mistakes, I had to really get it right. So, in order to be effective. So, I need to do my best educated guess, in using data, using analysis and mixed with some intuition, as well, to get a sense of what is going to work. So now we’re talking about: how do we create the next generation of activists? Well, how does that happen? And this is what brings us full circle back to what I was mentioning earlier. How do social movements transcend from one generation to the next? All of the big social movement have had to do it, whether it’s slavery, or women’s rights, or all these things?

Metta Spencer

I don’t believe in any of it. I have a completely different take on how, and the issue… I’ve never been in an organization that didn’t have at some point, and often every day, conversation about “how do we get young people into our movement?” As if without young people coming in is the end of the story? No. Young people if they’re going to do anything, they’ll do it on their own, they want to do their own, that’s what being young means, trying to get away from Mommy and Daddy, and do something independently. So, movements, like, you know, the climate-change movements that are youth-led, are really youth-led, and bless their hearts — go for it kids — terrific, — if we can support you, we will — but it’s yours. That’s great. Let them do it. They are not interested in joining an organization full of old people. However, that doesn’t mean that’s the end of the story. How do we get our replenishment of members? From other old people or other people, rather, who are about to become old. The best time to recruit somebody to the peace movement is when they turn 65 because then they’re about to retire, and they’re going to have lots of free time. And they have lots of smarts and lots of background and lots of information still in their heads, and some of them can still run around the block. So that’s the time you want to get somebody into your movement. And that’s where I get all of the people who work with me. Everybody on the editorial committee of Peace Magazine has gray hair. That’s because that’s when they’re ready to enter the peace movement again. Young people will join, maybe, will look around for a year or so. But they’re going to go on and do something different. And then when they get to be 65, then they’ll come back or they’ll come off to a different kind of organization. So, I think this thing about having to say we have to pass it to the next generation or it’ll die. That’s nonsense. We just get the next batch of old people. There’s always a funnel of old people coming through. So, you know, hang in there in a few years, Steve, you’re going to be ready for me to recruit you! (chuckles)

Steven Staples

I look forward to that day.

Metta Spencer

Tell me, let’s go back to talking a little bit about Peace Quest before we end because I want to hear your aspirations. What are you going to do with this outfit now that you own it?

Steven Staples

Well, I don’t own it, we have a board. One of the things we’ve done, it was really kind of a kind of campaign structure originally. I had a four-year lifespan, certain set… a very specific goal. That’s really a campaign, as opposed to an organization, I would say. And so now we’ve kind of gone back, we’ve registered it, we have a board, we’re trying to put it together in sort of more firm footing, building on the basis that was there. Going forward, it’s still very new. But I think certainly I’m interested in the education aspect. And seeing where peace education fits. I look at the peace movement right now in Canada and even internationally. One thing, I don’t want to create another organization or be part of another organization that’s just duplicating things that other people are doing, and probably doing better than me, than I would. So what are the areas? Where are the gaps right now in the peace movement? And when I talk to people, when I ask their advice, education does seem to be one of the areas where we do not have a strong presence, whether it be working with teachers, whether it be going into schools, if we talk Kindergarten to Grade 12, or even in some cases, doing mentorship and early career-coaching for young professionals. At the Rideau Institute we did have a fairly robust internship program. And that’s continued on, and we have interns all over Ottawa, in organizations all over Canada, even after just a fairly short time of less than 10 years. But I’m interested in K-12 because I actually am a teacher, and I was trained as a teacher. And so, I’m interested in looking at what we can do in terms of focusing on that peace education. There’s also going to be some policy work. I also see adult education as part of that and advocacy and organizing. So, there’ll be those elements as well. But I think those are the two areas where there will be certainly some kind of campaigning and organizing. But also, I want peace education to be an important part of it.

Metta Spencer

Okay, good. What about post-secondary education?

Steven Staples

Absolutely. So, that’s a bit of a different kettle of fish. But I think there’s certainly opportunities for experiential education for people involved in looking for early career work. My view, Metta, maybe is a little bit different than yours. I mean, certainly, you know, the over-65 crowd is essential and important, everybody’s important. But my view is to really bring in the next generation: jobs are key. We need to find people jobs in the peace movement. We need to teach them how to fish, not just give them fish. And I know that was important for me, and we all kind of draw from our own experience. But I had a job and I learned on the job. And I became, you know, it became a profession, not a volunteer, not a hobby. If you look at other movements, like the environmental movement, there are 1000s of people who go out and earn a paycheck every day trying to protect the environment. Well, we need a lot more people earning a paycheck every day trying to work for peace.

Metta Spencer

Absolutely. My grievance is that, I mean, I ran a peace and conflict program at the University of Toronto, I founded it and ran it for 15 years before I retired. And then of course, they retired the program because there was only me, and that was okay with me, because I knew that if they kept it going, they would get somebody who really didn’t know anything about it. And it wouldn’t be a very good program. So, I’d rather have it die. But nevertheless, my point is I kept on teaching afterwards. For several years, I kept giving a free course on nuclear issues: nuclear power and mostly nuclear weapons. I felt it was very distressing that there wasn’t a single course at the University of Toronto on nuclear weapons. I’m not sure what you could take on nuclear power, but I think probably in, you know, engineering and places like that you could take courses. But as it stands now, the University doesn’t offer courses on nuclear weapons, never has, and as far as I can tell, never intends to, which is really, really sad. Because, you know, that’s something that a student should even be able to major in, much less — you know, just get one course in. So, you know, I think that may be one of the things that we could do by way of fostering real peace education is to lobby universities and even community colleges and other institutions of post-secondary education to give courses on nuclear weapons and the nuclear threat. I don’t know how to do that. But if you know of any way, let’s talk about it. What do you know about that?

Steven Staples

Actually, there are quite a few Peace and Conflict programs in Canada, they are not… really, I mean, working in the peace movement myself for many years, I never felt very connected to those groups. And I was kind of surprised, actually, to learn that there were so many out there. So, I think that’s certainly an area you want to look at. You mentioned post-secondary education, whether it can be linked up with social movements. I do know, there’s some work being done at the University of Cape Breton on nuclear weapons. So, you find pockets of these things.

Metta Spencer

That’s really quite rare

Steven Staples

Maybe Zoom has provided us an opportunity to reach out and find these courses. And, what they say, we can amplify them, now using the technology. That’s really exciting.

Metta Spencer

Well, it’s terrific. I’m just delighted that you’re doing this, Steve and we ought to have a conversation like this once a month to find out what you’re doing and what everybody else is doing. Because you… we both have our fingers to the pulse of various peace groups in Canada. And I wish you all good luck and good wishes for the success of Peace Quest and we’ll stay in touch. All right.

Steven Staples

Thanks, Metta. I look forward to seeing more of your [Project] Save the World programs. You’re doing great education work, you’re a real inspiration.

Metta Spencer

Thanks so much, Steve. Take care. Bye.

T159. A World of Migrants

Posted on April 14, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T159. A World of Migrants

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 159
Panelists: Subha Xavier
Host: Metta Spencer

Date aired: 11 January 2021
Date Transcribed: 11 April 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer, today we have a conversation coming up about migration. And as you probably are aware, immigration is one of the big hot button issues of the day, not only in the US, although certainly especially in the US. And migration worldwide is seeming to be one of the issues that have provoked a lot of votes. Those folks who are, I guess we can call them, right-wing populist movements around the world. And so, we have to think, very broadly, about what the… transfer of population from one region of the world to another is going to mean to us in the future and what it already is meaning, in terms of the politics of different countries. And this today, I’m going to have a conversation with I have to say, a, a woman I’ve known since she was about eight years old? A very dear friend… Subha Xavier is in Atlanta. And hi… how are you dear?

Subha Xavier

I am well, thank you.

Metta Spencer

— Excellent, because I’m so thrilled at what you have accomplished, you and your friends in Atlanta, have recently accomplished by going out and going door to door and in inducing voters to… you found people whose ballots had been invalidated, and took it to them and said, straighten this, clean this up so you can vote. So, you won. Yeah,

Subha Xavier

We did. It was really exciting. And they call it securing ballots, which I think I love that word because we’re in the middle of a global pandemic. And at some point, it said on social media that I was happy to be part of any type of cure in this current climate. Um, so yeah, we were knocking on doors and helping people correct, secure their ballots. And it made a difference. In the end —

Metta Spencer

Did, you got…two senators, who are Democrats who are going to the new Congress, and … I went to bed at something like 12.30, or 1 o’clock, feeling fairly happy about the result of that. And then I didn’t watch the news again, for almost 24 hours, or at least a number of hours. And in the meantime, what had happened was this insurrection in the Capitol? So, it’s almost as if this extremely important piece of news about what had been accomplished in Atlanta got sidelined by the more photogenic activities that were going on at the Capitol Building. Yeah.

Subha Xavier

It’s a good way to put it sort of photogenic. What is photogenic these days? You know, what do we like to see? And what attracts our attention and our news cycle?

Metta Spencer

It’s not just today, it’s always been blood and gut… if it bleeds, it leads. But it is important, I in no way want to dismiss the extreme importance of this insurrection. But what you did is also really commendable. You folks,

Subha Xavier

I think it’s important to make the connection between the two, I do think that many people on both sides knew Georgia was going blue, all the signs were pointing towards it. The numbers were pointing towards it, the Poles were pointing towards it, everyone on the ground knew we had enough registered Democratic voters to win this election. And this went off. And I cannot underestimate and we cannot underestimate the importance of that news. And the impact of that news on the people who decided that interaction was the way to go. Because I think what we saw was people terrified of the change that is coming and wanting to hold on to a status quo that you and I both know, cannot last, just cannot last. And so, you know, I think Georgia was a key component in the motivations of these people. I —

Metta Spencer

— Some of the, you know, pundits that I was watching said, Well, this is a wonderful fluke, but Georgia is still a red state and hasn’t changed. Now. I don’t know what that means. Except that they obviously don’t mean don’t believe that in the future we’ll necessarily predict further moves towards it.

Subha Xavier

Honestly, I think they’re wrong. I think Georgia in its population and its demographics has changed drastically, drastically in the last 10 years. And I think largely, that’s because of black voters coming out to vote and feeling for the first time that they are not disenfranchised, that they can make a difference. But most importantly, I think it’s —

Metta Spencer

Quit touching something that bangs on your mic. Oh, I don’t know what whether you’re, I don’t know what you’re doing that sound anyway.

Subha Xavier

…But I do think… there are huge immigrant populations that have moved to the Atlanta area and the surrounding areas. And let’s face it, that the election was won because of the Atlanta counties and the counties surrounding us. It was not won in those other counties all around this, I mean, Atlanta is hugely populated, and we made the difference, and that population is not going anywhere. So, at best, I would say it’s a purple state. But I am actually confident because of the effort of people like Stacey Abrams, and Tamieka Atkins and others who’ve been… grassroots, just working nonstop for the last 10 years. I think they have actually changed the state. Wow, blue, I really do believe we’re more blue than purple. But you know, for the pundits’ sake, I will say okay, maybe we’re purple then. But we’re certainly no longer red. I think they got that wrong.

Metta Spencer

Okay, well, okay. And another factor has to do with, you’ve already pointed to the rural/urban differential, I’ve been looking at, I was looking at exit polls and these huge gap between rural and urban, in preference for Biden or the person whose name will not be uttered. Good.

Subha Xavier

Okay, I think that’s very true. You know, when we were securing ballots and volunteering, they were constantly asking us if we would drive out to other further away counties, to do this kind of work to try to make sure that those ballots counted. So, we think that’s really important, too, because, yes, the urban population of Georgia is perhaps more inclined to vote red and has always been inclined to vote Republican, but they’re always and continue to be Democrats in the rural populations as well. And if we were asked to be volunteers there, it’s because they’re there, and they’re feeling heavily disenfranchised. And I was, I was just over New Year’s Eve, I was actually in Hancock County, which going there, as I looked around, I was convinced it must be a very white county. And yet I found out it was most majority black. So, you have these rural counties that are also very African-American, and where people maybe just didn’t vote, or didn’t feel like their vote counted, or are intimidated when they go to the polling stations. And it was on the national news, you know, suddenly because Georgia was on CNN, we got that on the national news. And… we saw, in fact, that a place like Hancock County, completely rural, beautiful, but completely rural and very kind of disengaged, you would think, from federal and state politics is not, and that there are in fact, all these Democratic voters waiting to vote and waiting to be enabled to vote. And I think that was one of the big changes we saw.

Metta Spencer

And I know you said I believe that the votes that had been thrown out as not eligible somehow, and I’d be interested in knowing more about what, what disqualified a particular ballot, but that they sent, they were disproportionately black votes. ballots. Okay. So, so you were pursuing black voters, mostly right. And —

Subha Xavier

In the vast majority, yeah… the experience was very gratifying. But it was also very sad, you know, many of the voters that whose ballots we secured were elderly people who were sick, and who, perhaps whose signature, maybe because their hands were shaking their signature on the ballot… didn’t match with their original signature when they registered to vote, who knows how many years ago, decades ago, perhaps some of them the saddest ones were people who’d gone blind since they’d registered to vote. And they’d had to have somebody help them with their signature. Now, what they didn’t know is that they could have had somebody sign in their place. But these things are not necessarily very legible on a ballot. You don’t… know, you may have to do your research to know, so… you don’t do that, you are blind and… somebody tells you here’s the line, sign on this line. You don’t sign properly. You don’t sign in the exact match for the way you signed before, and the ballot was invalidated. So yeah, the vast majority were black… of ballots that I secured, were also black women. There were also a lot of young people, like 18-year-olds, of every ethnic background, who were just neglectful with the way they did their ballot, and who just kind of threw it in there. And who we had to go help, because their signature wasn’t matching, or they had not, you know… coloured in the circle properly. So it was kind of the two extremes. But yes, I think the vast majority of voters who needed their ballots secured, or at least in my experience, of course anecdotal, were black. And I will also say that when they saw me at the door, versus my husband at the door, who is white-skinned, and when they saw me, they would open the door, but whenever we would go together… they wouldn’t open the door. So, we figured out that he needed to stay in the car, and I needed to go to the door, and I would sometimes see one of my kids, and they would, you know, open the door that would vary. So again, that also shows you something about… fear and trust, in the sense that… these are voters that have been disenfranchised their entire lives, and they don’t know who to believe anymore. And the fact that we had leaders on the ground… whose goal only goal was to bring them back in was just inspiring. And …like you said … before, I think this needs to be part of that new cycle. And it’s not sufficiently in, the new cycle – that we need to be talking about this. And I do think these kinds of things scare white supremacist voters more than anything else, when we empower the very people who they believe have sort of taken away their power, their so-called power – right there. Imagined, imagined power really,

Metta Spencer

Would you have run into hostility from say, neighbours who didn’t like what you were doing?

Subha Xavier

Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, I’m very careful. I live kind of in suburban Georgia and in Atlanta, and I’m very careful. I mean, I didn’t I didn’t leave my house for five days after the election. Not even to walk my dog. I just I didn’t feel safe. I didn’t feel after Biden’s election… didn’t feel safe. Because of the way people look at me, you know, and the way I get kind of stared down and there’s

Metta Spencer

Isn’t, you say brown skin? What is it that or is it that they saw you with a… Biden sign or something and they… realizes what you were doing and didn’t like it?

Subha Xavier

Well, we have we have Biden and Warnock and all those signs in our yard… more importantly, we have Kamala Harris signs in our yard. We have. So yes. I mean, I think it’s all of that. I think, yes, we have these we had huge securing when you secure ballots, you have all this paperwork that is very clearly Democrat. So yeah, I mean, I was I was very careful. I was, I’m just aware, I do get stares, I get racist slurs, you know, at least regularly, I would say, you know, I mean, it’s, I think we live in a time and a state that is more openly racist. And when people who are racist, are kind of given permission.

Metta Spencer

Right. Right.

Subha Xavier

I mean, this is why I think he whom we shall not name is profoundly responsible because he has really emboldened people to do and see things that ordinarily they never would – there’s a part of me that thinks, well, I would rather them out themselves than not. Because in some ways when they ask themselves, it’s not only I who see it, but others see it around me as well. And that’s important, right? There’s so much racism that is kind of hidden behind closed doors that we see, for example, in the academy all the time… the ways in which racism is something we… experience, and yet we don’t show it, we don’t speak it out loud. So there is to me, a part of the way in which this particular administration has emboldened people to speak their… prejudice out loud. Part of me has been relieved by that because at least it’s for all… ears to hear and all eyes to see. and not only targeted this very pointed, careful way at people like me, or who look like me… I am an optimist, you know, I really am… an optimist means that I see all this as leading to some greater good…, I sort of think that even this kind of insurrection is… I like the fact that we all got to see it. Because otherwise, it’s often people like me who see it. but here it was the whole world — We all got to — glance on it for I don’t know how long it went on, because I didn’t watch it. But the others they watched it. And I think it’s great that they watched it. You know, I think that is exactly what you need. Watch it, and realize that this is what goes on in this country every single day.

Metta Spencer

… I don’t know whether say it’s a blessing to me, but… I never see it. You know, I would never. And when, you know, I think your mother said that. Yes, she encounters it. And I was startled. You know, that was a number of years ago. Yeah, racism here in Toronto. But what happens? You know, I don’t see it. And I’m always astonished when it occurs. Yeah. And by the way, you said you take… one of your two children to the door of a black family, and they’ll let you in.

Subha Xavier

I take both of them. I take both of them. Yes.

Metta Spencer

But if they were blonde, would it make any difference?

Subha Xavier

That’s a good point. I mean, I think children are less intimidating, no matter what. So I think that there’s something you know, when you see a woman with a child, you don’t think that they’re here to somehow intimidate you, right?

Metta Spencer

These families that you’re going to the door, you they don’t see you as black, your Sri Lankan. They must know that you’re not black, but what do they think of you? Does it but you say it helps that you?

Subha Xavier

I think it does, because I single-handedly secured more ballots than most of the volunteers. I mean, and it just happened that way. I did. It wasn’t planned.

Metta Spencer

You’re a forceful personality.

Subha Xavier

Yes. But at the same time, I think I’m… a less intimidating presence at a door. And I don’t blame them for it. Because if I was alone at home, and somebody knocked on the door, you know, in suburban Georgia, I mean, I’d think twice before opening the door… So, I do think that that has something to do with it … I don’t know if necessarily, they know what my ethnic identity is, per se. But I think seeing a small brown woman at your door is just, quite frankly, less irritating. Okay. And it tells you a little more about the sort of racial climate in the state than anything else.

Metta Spencer

Okay, let’s talk more generally about that because part of the explanation you’ve already given is that lots of migrants are coming into Georgia. And I understand that there’s a significant change… in the demographics of the whole state, to really make a difference. So, who are these migrants? Where are they coming from? And what do they have in common? Or are they similar enough to even say they have anything in common politically? What can we say about the migrants around your part of the world? Maybe not. I know, you also lived in Miami, before you moved to Atlanta, I should have introduced you properly, by saying that you teach French and Francophone studies and migrant studies at Emory University in Atlanta, which is an excellent university and populated by excellent professors such as yourself, and I’m very proud of you. Oh, so… what’s different about Miami and Atlanta as you move from one to the other?

Subha Xavier

Yeah… what we are witnessing in this country is the growing political presence of immigrant populations. And I think that’s really important to frame that way. That immigrant population, you know, this is a country of immigrants. You hear that being said all the time, and Canada is a country of immigrants as well, you know, most countries in the West are today, more and more and increasingly countries of immigrants, so they have always been there. But now slowly, they are becoming a political presence, a presence and that by that, I mean, their vote is swaying the way large groups of people are voting. And I do think that in Atlanta, what’s really unique to the Atlanta region is that it is a majority largely black African American, Atlanta region, and then all these suburban or rural areas… other cities that are less black overall… Even though like I said, I think that that demographic too… has to be revisited. And then you have… the major urban areas… immigrants who have been pouring in for the last, you know, easily 30 years in significant numbers. So, yes, they’ve been here all along. But in significant numbers, I would say that maybe in the last 30 to 40 years, that has changed dramatically. So there, I think, from everywhere, but what we have in Atlanta, we have a significant growing Hispanic population, not at all comparable to what we had in Miami, but a growing Hispanic population from various parts of Latin America. Significantly, I would say that I have noticed in my work with migrants in the city, that we have a growing population of Puerto Ricans, that we have a growing population of Mexicans, that we have a growing population of Venezuelans, we have Salvadorans… Brazilian… as well, Indians have often been attracted again, or something,

Metta Spencer

something’s bumping the mic.

Subha Xavier

Oh, the microphone. I’m sorry. It shouldn’t hurt.

Metta Spencer

Okay, I don’t know what’s happening. So anyway, I can edit it out.

Subha Xavier

… there’s a huge Indian population here has always been one. And then there’s a significant African population here that’s growing. That that I’ve been working with, through my work at Emory as well, from Sudan, from Rwanda, from the Congo. And then there’s the Asian population and a great big population of Vietnamese, Koreans, there’s a whole area that’s very close to where we live called Buford highway, it’s… known as the immigrant part of Atlanta. And it’s known for its incredible cuisine, you know, and you have every possible restaurant and supermarket, and you can get any Asian food possible… but they’re also very Latin, it’s also very Hispanic and Latinx. And that too, is a positive, these are populations that have been very important and growing in the Atlanta area. So, I think it’s incredible, and that you have this diversity of population, what they have in common… is that they’re relative newcomers, that they have all of the issues that immigrants face from one generation to the other, this dramatic difference in the way they are integrated into life, from one generation to the other. I’m… obviously one of those cases in point. You know, my work talks a lot about how they are caught between… resistance and exploitation, they’re both exploited for their labor, for what they can bring, their cuisine… all the wonderful ethnic things that they bring in, they enrich our lives — then they’re exploited at the same time, because they’re treated with prejudice. And so they’re always kind of resisting, and at the same time looking to integrate, and in some ways, they’re accused of selling out, because… some of them integrate so much. And they they’re accused of betrayal, because they leave behind cultural… language… cultural practices, sometimes… religion, and these things are often deemed unforgiveable. You know, this is what the literature… I’m a professor of literature, and that’s what this is, what the art —

Metta Spencer

introduce you that way too. I didn’t say… Your research has to do with the literary production of people into Francophone countries. Yes. from elsewhere, from non- Francophone countries. All of them are migrants, and you’re dealing with migrant literature. In fact, I think the title of your book had some refers to the word migrant,

Subha Xavier

Migrant texts, making and marketing a global French literature. And so yeah, it’s really about how this literature this and their cultural production gives us real insight into the ways in which they inhabit the spaces and all the spaces right the political spaces, but also the cultural spaces and the economic spaces. And I think what they have in common is the way in which they’re constantly negotiating different cultures, different language. different expectations and different politics. I mean, they listened to what you had Maria Puerto Rivera, on your show, you know, and I enjoyed it, because it did that it that’s exactly what she’s talking about the kind of negotiating politics between Trump and Guido and just kind of what, where we, where they land is interesting, because she actually said, they kind of turn into pretzels of sword. And I thought, what a wonderful image because I truly think that’s what it’s like to be a migrant, you know, you’re, you’re kind of pressing your body around, to try to, you know, meet all these different expectations and all these different standards that are held up to you. And invariably, you’re going to fail to meet somebody standard and somebody’s expectation, right. That’s what they share in common.

Metta Spencer

But what you also have taught in Paris, your university sends you as kind of a mother in long with some students to spend a year or two and in Paris, and you were there recently, and I believe that then you have a really good opportunity to compare what migration is like for the people landing in Paris, the situation of people landing in Atlanta or Miami? Is, is there a difference in the way? France treats migrants? They’ve certainly had some disturbing riots and just, you know, events, protest movements of, I guess, mostly North African immigrants to France, in in the past years. I’m not sure that I’ve heard of any in the last two or three years. But at any rate is there anything you can say about how, how different countries process immigrants? And whether there’s a whether it makes any difference in their experience?

Subha Xavier

Yeah, I mean, I, in many ways, no two countries seem to handle immigrants like, but I do think there’s always a populist, extreme right-wing version of immigration that many of these countries share, as we know, England, the US, Canada to some extent, and certainly France and Germany. I mean, we they all have a there’s always a rightwing extremist narrative of belonging and nationhood that always needs the migrants — you know, this is something I write about — in that nationalism and migrant populations go together. Right when… migrant populations increase, nationalism increases. And I think what’s important to note is that the story that each tells goes alongside with it, so the migrants’ story, and the story of immigration goes alongside with the… national… story. And the nation story is one that has to make sense of the migrants, they have to either dissolve them into themselves, or they have to posit that as the enemy. And as you see today… that is often how it works. So… that framework… if I can call it a narrative framework, is true… across the board, in terms of that extreme… nationalist narrative, … but the migrant, the immigrant is always part of that narrative. And I think that’s telling, … because it tells you that immigrants are sort of the unresolvable problem… to the nation state as we have —

Metta Spencer

You know… your simple equation is an obvious one, but I’ve never actually put it that – simply where you have… immigration, you have nationalism… I hadn’t thought about it. Is that always true?

Subha Xavier

In all the cases I’ve studied, it’s been true. I mean, it’s just… a numbers game like … nationalist rhetoric increases. Even in Quebec, it was true, because I studied Quebec as well. And even in Quebec, it was true, because the 70s was this key moment in Quebec nationalism, and the 70s is when the immigration immigrant population just went like this… they were next to nonexistent till that time, they were very small, and suddenly they became a presence. And again, when you have this presence, that you can’t quite dissolve.

Metta Spencer

You’re making me unhappy because… if you say that generally holds up… the future is not too bright, we’ll close with global warming, we’re going to have a whole lot more migration with multiple times as much migration as we have now. I mean, the whole country of Bangladesh is going to have to evacuate… And these small… islands in the Pacific and so on are going to be inundated. And God knows where else, I think Lower Manhattan is going to have to evacuated.

Subha Xavier

Florida is going to be non-existent.

Metta Spencer

All of these, these populations are going to be on the move, big time. And I hadn’t thought about that. There’s sort of like an equation that you calculate — how much nationalism you’re going to have… this is very un-pleasant. I hope you’re wrong. But maybe you, maybe it holds up? I don’t know, I never thought about it quite that quite that way.

Subha Xavier

As I do… that is my prediction. I will stand by it. I really do think and you know, whether or not we are comforted or discomforted by that reality, I think we need to be aware of that reality. I think we need to, and we need to respond to that reality. I think in places like the US what’s fascinating is to look at Georgia as a really good example of … what that means politically, because what you have is, if you have more and more migrants in a place like Georgia, well, they’re going to vote differently. And they’re going to be a different kind of political entity. And that also, to me, brings with it some hope. I’m not saying that immigrants don’t contribute to nationalist thinking, because they do. And we’ve witnessed it… we know that immigrants did vote for Trump. I think that’s an important thing to say. I think we know that immigrants do vote with the right wing. Well, there’s —

Metta Spencer

— Another thing though, that motion is somewhat different. Your equation has to be is sort of modified in that… I’ve talked to Doug Saunders about this, because he writes about migration. And he, if I’m not misquoting him, I think he really would say that, where the opposition to migrants is located is not where the migrants are. In other words, where they actually settle the people around them become – Okay, you know – they handle it pretty well. It’s some people some distance away… localities where there are no migrants that display the greatest amount of bigotry. So… maybe as more migrants come, They have a better chance of winning the narrative… as a better prospect is – would you want to say that or not?

Subha Xavier

Well, I think I unfortunately… I was trying to say, I don’t think it’s that simple. Because some of them are, if I can use the word almost co-opted into the other narrative, right. In other words, and let’s not forget that. I think that’s important, because we don’t all invest in a great majority, for example, the US immigrants tend to vote Democrat, great majority. But let’s not forget those who don’t — there’s been a lot of writing about that recently. You know, when I’m writing about that, as well, right now, it’s just I think it’s important to note that there’s some percentage of them who do not vote.

Metta Spencer

Maria was pointing… to the Venezuelans.

Subha Xavier

Exactly,

Metta Spencer

Exactly those people they supported Trump

Subha Xavier

Absolutely

Metta Spencer

Doesn’t make really much sense, because they’re, they’re, you know,

Subha Xavier

I appreciated that she problematizes that because I think we need to do more of that kind of work. We need to show how, ultimately – it’s so contradictory, and it’s really not rational. And I don’t think there’s anything about nationalism that is rational, let’s face it, it is kind of this gut reaction, in this way of voting. I think I told you earlier, that, you know, the first Trump signs that came out in my neighborhood, were from the Korean family… and that was a very disturbing thing for me and my children. I mean, my kids were just trying to understand that, they were trying to process… “Ma… these are not the people you said vote for Trump. How can this be?” you know, and then we’ve had to process it as a family. These are our neighbors. And what does it mean to be the first to bring out the signs? That’s also really key. I think they’re saying… is where we stand. … you may see a Korean-American coming out of… my door, but this is who we are. Not — I think it’s really important and that… population is not going to go away and the… Republicans if they’re smart, will actually capitalize on those populations…. we know our Cuban… Venezuelan, there’s a certain percentage of right wing voters among all the immigrant groups. And I think they are important. And we need to understand that as long as that tendency is there among immigrant populations, the narrative will never be one narrative, right? There will be many different stories that are being told. And I’m interested in stories, as you know, because I write about stories. So I’m interested in their story as well. And this is why I’ve been doing some work on this right now. And I’m interested in the story that they tell of themselves, because they have to make it somehow make sense.

Metta Spencer

Are you doing it systematically, you know, trying to compare migrants that tilt left to migrants right? Or are you What? Well, I,

Subha Xavier

As you know, I’m not a sociologist, and I have sociologist friends who are doing that work. So I’m drawing on their work… they’re doing the data analysis, I’m doing the kind of literary analysis of stories and texts. And the texts to me are really very interesting, because I like to read between the lines of text and see… what is the story you’re telling? What is the story you cannot tell, or you refuse to tell? And the story you refuse to tell is just as interesting as the story you tell. So, the story you tell might be that look at me, I’m Korean American, I’ve come here, I’ve done well look at my beautiful house, look at all the houses that I rent to other people, look at my business, look at my small business, and so on so forth. But in the putting up of the sign…you also saying… I’ve gotten this certain status, and the status allows me to vote in my interests. And my interests are my taxes. And I do not want to pay these taxes. And my interest is… private schools, because that’s where my children go, they go to the best Atlanta private schools… You’re saying, I’ve gotten to a point where I don’t have to worry about other people, I get to just worry about myself. That I think is a message. That’s how I interpret the message.

Metta Spencer

You are you actually have the makings of a very fine politician, very dynamic. I don’t know whether you have aspirations along those lines. But I kind of would like to,

Subha Xavier

Who knows, you know, but I think one thing I’ve really thought a lot about in Georgia is that, you know, the way this administration — but even before this administration, sadly, this was going on under Obama as well — has treated immigrants and illegal immigrants has been, the most horrific and the most inhuman. possible, and the fact that immigrant populations are not up in arms… protesting what this treatment — to me is also one of the most disturbing things about migrant life that I have encountered.

Metta Spencer

Wait a minute, now you’re saying that this was going on? And it wasn’t just under… but it was under Obama, too? Yes.

Subha Xavier

Yes. Because, you know, Obama was known among immigrant populations as deporter-in-chief.

Metta Spencer

Right? Yeah,

Subha Xavier

He was. He was deporting he was imprisoning the number of detainees, basically detained in inhuman conditions, far too many people… within a prison. You know… denied all access to their loved ones, denied access to proper meals… it’s a system that is corrupt. And we there’s not one person we can blame. But what I’m saying is that immigrants have not been treated very well, especially in Georgia, because we are actually home to some of the largest prisons of immigrant detainees. And the fact that… you have these immigrants who are doing so well and who are prospering and at the same time… are so removed… at least mentally, are able to say, “That’s not me… that’s not my problem.” … you can say this is a human problem, and all humans should be worried about it. But the fact that you can be an immigrant and no longer feel any kind of identification with someone else, who has come under dire conditions, no matter the reason, under difficult conditions, and is now being treated, inhumanly, in inhuman ways that you can just kind of let them sit there.

Metta Spencer

Well, that’s really disturbing. That’s doesn’t bode well for your prospects under… Biden’s administration if… Obama wasn’t all that great, then is there any reason to think Biden is going to be different? Or I don’t know whether you want to pin it on them personally Biden the man and Obama the man, or just the people around them? Is there any reason to expect that because of the big anti-immigrant action under the Trump presidency, that there will be a reaction that will be much more favorable to immigrants now, or, or?

Subha Xavier

I like I said, I want to be the optimist. And I want to be hopeful. And I think we are so starved for hope at this point, after the last administration that I have to think it can only be better… Am I… confident that Biden and his administration will bring kind of huge systemic… change, which is the kind of change we need? I’m not so sure. At the local level, I am a big fan of Stacey Abrams. I’m really hoping she will be governor in 2022… I put more faith in her and… the American system is such that really… at the state level is where so much is done and can be done. And certainly, in terms of our prisons in Georgia, I would think that somebody like Stacey Abrams, would attend to the human- rights crisis we’re in in ways that I’m not sure Biden — I’m sensitive to Obama’s, the ways in which he was blocked, you know, right, left and center every time you try to make any kind of change. And I think I’m sure Biden will be too, even with our recent Georgia victories, I you know, everything will be a challenge for him. Any sweeping change will be I think, blocked by,

Metta Spencer

You know? Yeah. Well, let’s hope that this scandal over the last few days will change the dynamics in a significant way, too, because I think the Republicans are fragmenting you know, we’re gonna hear all jumping ship right now. Yeah, enough to make a difference. How many of them, what fraction? I think it’ll be very interesting. I think over the next few days, we’ll have a pretty good idea of how many people are going to go down with the ship. If it goes down? Yeah, okay. Look, I this is a, I should move on, I’ve got a, we both have a full day ahead of us. We’ll see how… delightful… to talk to you,

Subha Xavier

Thank you feel free to talk to… and I’m very grateful to… you were one of the people who welcomed my family as immigrants and as refugees. And I know, you’ve done this for lots of people, and we are just one among so many you’ve helped. But that, you know, I was thinking to myself before today, before meeting you today that I think you were my first real Canadian white adult, who I knew. And I think that’s huge. When you think about childhood and the kind of impact people make on you and you’re, how they shape who you are, and they shape your dreams, and they shape your ambitions. And, and I… think of myself like… I became an academic and really, there are no academics in my family. But Metta as an academic… I mean, maybe you were my inspiration. I never really thought about it that way. But it occurred to me today.

Metta Spencer

Well, I really would love to take credit for you. Good. I’ll claim all the credit. That’s It’s wonderful. And I’m just really happy for you and for your family. Thanks. Okay. Bye.

T184. The Spanish Flu

Posted on April 7, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T184. The Spanish Flu

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 184
Panelists: Patrick Boyer
Host: Metta Spencer

Date aired: 11 February 2021
Date Transcribed: 18 February 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

I’m Metta Spencer. Today I get to get caught up with an old friend, Patrick Boyer, who is in his home in Bracebridge, Ontario in a room that I would just love to go snooping around, and see all these good things that you have in the background. So, Patrick and I have known each other in the Pugwash movement over the years, but I haven’t been in touch with him a while he’s kind of off in cottage country, living a life of solitude. Or maybe, maybe he’s done in solitude. I don’t know what kind of life he lives up there, but maybe we’ll find out. At any rate, the other day I happened to come across I don’t know how they came to me, but he does a weekly show on cottage country, the Muskoka area, I gather it is about history of the region. So, I guess he’s become a local historian. And the talk show he did the other day was, it wasn’t a talk show, it was a presentation a formal presentation of a history of the Spanish Flu in the Muskoka region. Is that right, Patrick?

Patrick Boyer

Yes, in Muskoka district, this program — well, the interesting thing is that in January 2020, I began this broadcast on our community radio station from Huntsville, Ontario. And talking about the Spanish flu, and how it had impacted Muskoka and Muskokans, using this district as a case study of a larger phenomenon. You know, we talk about the big picture and the general principles, but things happen on the ground, in real people’s lives. And so, it’s an easier way to impart a lot of understanding about a global phenomenon to actually look at real places, and how it played out there. Well, in the course of doing that, I also had to talk about how the Spanish Flu arose and developed and spread and what it was like and, and so on. But that program, in January 2020, was the inaugural show, for my ‘Boyer’s modern history of Muskoka’. And it was really a couple months after that, that we began to be aware of the new influenza that was spreading rapidly. And we know I thought, I thought, the interesting way to to help people because the program that you saw, just recently, was after we’d all been subjected to [in] a year of another pandemic. And all of a sudden, I realized that a great way to teach something. And, and first, let me put it this way, if I could, at first, a lot of people thought, well, that’s just an interesting period piece, something that happened in times past. And you know, it was quite gripping to see what happened in people’s lives the way that death was coming. And municipalities had to respond, because there was no federal Department of Health, no World Health Organization, it was totally different on the ground, Metta. But I thought, well, now that everybody’s lived through a year, with COVID, and not only coping with it, but understanding it pretty well, because we get these daily inundations of news reporting on it, right? Breaking news every 10 minutes. I thought this would now be a much better way to teach by comparison, what is a global phenomenon like, that we know so well today, stacked up against one that happened a century ago. And so that was the basis of that recent program or broadcast that you are —

Metta Spencer

Well, I thought it was absolutely fascinating. And you know, to me, it’s it is it’s also interesting that we can we know so little about the Spanish Flu. Oh, I will call it the Spanish flu, even though that’s really a real misnomer, I think. But I’ll call it that because everybody else does. But, you know, I don’t know much about it. And I remember hearing my mother, very rarely, talk about it. She would be 100 over 100 by now. Well into her 80s… so she must have been a baby at the time. But I think it’s extraordinary in that we so many people were killed and so many lives ruined and yet we don’t really hear that much about it, in my opinion. Anything like, I mean, for example, I understand that more people were killed by the Spanish Flu than by World War One.

Patrick Boyer

Well, they were on an equal scale. And it was basically 50 million people… who died. There were many, many millions more who were infected and recovered. We’re aware today of those numbers, the number of people that get COVID, and then the number who die from it.

Metta Spencer

How many died? And how many caught it?

Patrick Boyer

Yeah, so about 230 million people were infected by the Spanish flu, and approximately 50 million died.

Metta Spencer

Okay, now, that’s how many people have died of COVID. so far?

Patrick Boyer

Worldwide? It’s about 2 million… It’s over 2 million. Yeah.

Metta Spencer

So, the scale or, you know, a different… order of magnitude in a way?

Patrick Boyer

Yes, that’s correct. And, and also, you are hesitating about calling it the Spanish flu. And that’s a very interesting point. And certainly, you were right to, to kind of check. Because that influenza, did not originate in Spain. It came, it had been developing in China, and was by March of 19. By February of 1918, the World War was still underway, all around the globe. And in France, where everyone was in despair about how badly this war was going, and how dire the consequences and how many dead there were. There were strikes in the factories in, France, there were shortages, even on the work crews, out of the Western Front. And so, the Chinese Labor Corps came, they where there were many hundreds and hundreds of Chinese men coming in crowded ships from China, even as millions were dying in that country. Across… the oceans to France, and bringing with them the flu.

Metta Spencer

did the French know, did the world know in general, how much trouble there was in China?

Patrick Boyer

No, no, no, they didn’t have real-time satellite broadcasts coming from around the world. It was on top of the fact that the communication was limited to basically cables, cable grounds, and newspapers. Forget about everything else, radio, television, satellites, all that we’re worried we’re so acclimatized to today… we’re talking about a totally different world, just a century ago. So, they didn’t know that. And —

Metta Spencer

Was the government of China trying to suppress the information?

Patrick Boyer

Well, today they are, but I’ll tell you what, in with the Spanish flu, it was the Canadian government that was trying to suppress the information Really? Oh, yes. Why? Well, I’ll explain that. But I just want to finish about why it’s called the Spanish flu. Yeah. So, the Chinese labor corps arrived in French harbors, and were deployed into the country. And one of the attributes of that flu was that it travelled, it… infected most people in the age group 18 to 40, not older people, not children, but in that demographic, which was the perfect definition of the age of soldiers. And the soldiers were crowded into fetid, wet unhygienic trenches along the western front, all the way from the Swiss Alps, to the North Sea, a gigantic incubator, and those that weren’t in the trenches, were crowded into hospitals as wounded. They were being shifted from one zone to another, from one country to another. They were in barracks and bivouacs and on troop ships and troop trains, all of which was very crowded. So, you know, today, as everyone does about social distancing and wearing masks and washing your hands and all of these efforts to reduce the spread of a virus? Well, it was 180 degrees opposite in 1918, and 19 and 20. Because it wasn’t really understood. And this point that you also focused on there a moment ago, Metta, the governments didn’t want to publicize anything, nor did the military — relating to health, or morale in the troops, because that would convey a vulnerability to the enemy. And so, it was absolutely prohibited under the Canadian Army practices as the British and French and others. There were eight different empires fighting in that world war… millions of people in arms all around the world. They… just clamped down on any information, whether it was about flu, or mumps, which was very prevalent, or pneumonia… and venereal disease (apart from the French who were open about that, nobody else the British, the Canadians, the Americans, let’s say finally got into the war ever talked about venereal disease, but that was also a further debilitating disease condition for a lot of soldiers in that war). So, the desire on the part of the government and the army to suppress information was made a whole lot easier by wartime press censorship, and the censorship of mail between the front lines and the home front and back and forth. I mean, the Army’s censors… armed with scissors would turn some people’s letters into looking like the paper dolls under we used to, remember, cut those all up, people would open envelopes, and it’s just shredded paper because there was no ability to transmit information about what was happening. And so —

Metta Spencer

Every soldier sending letters home in World War One would have from the front would have his letter slot —

Patrick Boyer

open, opened by military readers centers and censored. And it didn’t black it out, they cut it out. So, what happened is that this influenza was spreading throughout Europe, and into Spain, part of Europe. Now, one of the very few countries that was not a belligerent power in the Great War, First World War was Spain. And if you know the doctors in the Iberian Peninsula, were no better at diagnosing this than doctors anywhere else. However, the Spanish newspapers were not under wartime press censorship. As we all had the press censorship in Canada under the War Measures Act, that apart from the mail being censored, so in Spain, when they heard about all these people falling sick… some kind of influenza, they began to write stories about it. Front-page news. Well, this was the first place anybody in the world was hearing about this, this devastating influenza. And so, it became called the Spanish flu. And that’s how it has long since been referred to. It’s one of those perverse quirks of historical need to peg something on a place — like in Canada, we know about the ‘Dutch Elm disease, and we all see our beautiful elm trees dying and we were getting mad at the Dutch, right? Well, no, it didn’t start in the Netherlands. It was simply the Dutch are so good with their science and art, you know, there are biologists and arborists and so on, they were analyzing it, and they came up with the fact that what it was the kind of it was killing healthy — So it was the same thing. The Dutch Elm disease, the Spanish flu.

Metta Spencer

Well, of course, sometimes there’s an intention for pegging it with a particular country. I mean, Trump was always referring to the… China virus or something. And of course, he was trying to create a sense of culpability that the Chinese had were evil because the virus came from China. Well Just because it came from China, does it mean anything except that, you know, it could have started anywhere? And I guess the question is more like, what can we do or what should have been done to contain it? I guess they didn’t do enough right away, but they sure bent over backwards to try to contain it. At least I’m talking about the current virus, COVID. Because they really tried to contain it very strenuously in China much more vigorously than then Canadians have tried to contain it. What was done? I my impression is and you can correct me that a lot of the infection was spread by soldiers coming home and bringing the disease with them. Is that correct? And what happened in Canada or in the rest of the world as soldiers brought this germ back with, you’re absolutely correct.

Patrick Boyer

Metta, a troopship in… 1918, in the summer, was returning from Britain to Canada with wounded soldiers. All the soldiers who were being invalided back-to-back to Canada, they weren’t going to recover enough in British soldiers’, in British hospitals, and Canadian hospitals in Britain to be able to go back into battle, many of them were many of them did, but these were, these were soldiers who were coming home and carrying the influenza with them, crowded conditions on those ships, and, and all the rest. So, basically, every ship that was coming back from Europe into a Canadian port, from the mid 1918s, on was transporting people that who had the Spanish flu, once they reached Halifax, the port of Halifax, they boarded trains, and returned home all across Canada. And that was a — you know, about our travel advisories and interprovincial bubble barriers and all this — there was none of that back then. And so, here in Muskoka, for example, as a few soldiers were removed from their train and, and into homes or hospitals… a lot actually coming to Gravenhurst, which had the first tuberculosis sanitarium in all Canada. And so, it was treating soldiers who had mustard gas damage to their lungs. This place was a bit of a magnet for returning soldiers. And in Quebec, an outbreak of significant proportions started with these returning soldiers at St. Jean military base, you know, on in the Eastern Townships part of Quebec, along the [Richelieu] River, and that fall, it spread to an academy at Drummondville. And, and the students and the staff, the teachers were all coming down with this flu. And, and all that was happening from Ottawa and with the army was a not on… It is not a serious illness, people will recover. So, what they did, they transported off, they closed the Drummondville school, because everybody was sick, they couldn’t teach, couldn’t learn. And they all went back to their own communities across Quebec, where they come from spreading it further. Brilliant. Yeah. And it just keeps going like that —

Metta Spencer

Sorry, but didn’t they know better? I mean, didn’t anybody realize, of course they did. The word quarantine goes back to the Middle Ages. So people even, you know, 100 or 1000 years ago probably knew enough to keep from traveling around spreading the thing. Why? Why did Canadian officials know better?

Patrick Boyer

Well, you’re quite right. First of all, about the quarantine being something that would have been has been applied for centuries. Like if there’s a case of cholera or diphtheria or any communicable disease… a medical officer of health would order that there be signs put up around a home or a farm or any place like that. But the reason that no warning was given no alarm or no prevention, is that the Canadian Army in Ottawa was sending out messages, press releases press statements that this, this current… ‘grippe’, they were kind of referring to it like severe colds, you know, is, is spread fast but it’s not a serious consequence and people quickly recover and, and above all, it’s… fast passing. And so, so they absolutely were downplaying it. In the when the medical officer of health in Muskoka, Dr. Peter McGibbon, wanted to close the schools in the district, which we understand in present day, this is a big issue, and the… school is going to be closed because of the transmission. And —

Metta Spencer

Now, excuse me, but would the young people have also been more susceptible to it? You said the youngest adults, but were school age children also affected more than they will today?

Patrick Boyer

Dr. McGibbon thought that it was a risk that you know, and even if they didn’t come down with it, they could be transmitting it, something we know today, right? But we did have cases in Muskoka certainly, documented cases where mothers died with their children. And so it was, and these were young infants, you know, so really young ones. But the point that I that was important is that the Ontario Board of Health at that time, told McGibbon no, you cannot close the schools, it would be unnecessary, and it would be inconveniencing a lot of people. And we don’t want to upset anyone in the communities. So, you know, it was denied. And the thing is, we had no department of, well, there was no World Health Organization. There was no Department of Health in Ottawa. It actually, in the province was pretty much a hand off. In terms of… hospitals, and doctors, nurses and all legislation, it was the provinces really were running social services and health care then… as now — just that Ottawa got itself into the picture. But the province itself was also following Ottawa’s line in downplaying this… the military base hospital in Toronto had issued a statement to all the Toronto papers that… this is not anything that anybody should be worrying about. We’ve got it, we’ve got it. And… 10 days later that very base, where people were dying, and more and more succumbing to the illness… the flu, was begging other hospitals and other… for nurses, there was a huge… shortage of nurses, just as we have today. One of the reasons for that… a huge number of Canadian registered nurses had volunteered and gone overseas for the war. They were not on the scene back in Canada. You know, a quarter of our nurses were in Europe, about 20-24 from Muskoka alone, a lightly populated district. So… this was the effort of the government and the army to suppress information to downplay it, and to hold back any information about stemming the tide. So, it fell to municipalities to be the frontline authority, really taking things into under control. And so, in the towns of Huntsville and Bracebridge, in Gravenhurst, and the smaller villages following, those municipalities… closed the schools, they closed the theaters, they put in a rule that nobody can go into the post offices while the mail is being sorted and put in your box, in your mailboxes, because we don’t want people jamming up in the lobby of the… post office…. Yeah, I mean, the Huntsville Forester newspaper kept publishing right through the whole period of the Spanish Flu in this district. But it came down to the editor Harmon Rice and one typesetter… the two of them getting the paper out every week. It’s in the sheet, it became a very thin sheet, but they did they did report on what was happening. You know, the, this was a time when the celebrated Bigwin Inn was being built over on Bigwin island and Lake of Bays through, the war very hard. But the stonemasons

Metta Spencer

What that is, by the way?

Patrick Boyer

It became the largest and most prestigious summer resort hotel in North America. It opened in in the early 1920s… June of 1922 until… the late 1950s. And — there’s still life on that island. But at that time, this this place was being built. But they were having such a hard time getting workers… the stonemasons that they had were falling ill and dying from the Spanish flu. And the Bell telephone exchange in Bracebridge was basically shut down because all the operators had the flu. So, people were not able to make very many phone calls. Meat market was closed in this town, because, you know, everybody that worked there, died [or] was home sick. Peter McGibbon, the doctor who was our medical officer of health, he was also our MP at that time. He got the town to take over a hospital or an apartment building, sorry, a hotel, hotel in the town and turn it into an emergency hospital. What like we see, you know, they did it first in New York, and then in Britain, where — and now we’ve got one in Toronto, a hospital that’s exclusively for — now COVID cases, then Spanish flu cases. And because you want the people to be confined in an isolated, in one isolated place, right. But they what they were administering, were still sort of we’d almost say what they were home remedies. You know, they didn’t understand the neurology and the in the medical science and understood

Metta Spencer

Well, but they didn’t have a cure anyway. Even COVID, they don’t have a cure. It’s like taking aspirin for — where the you know; they don’t have a cure. And we just hope vaccines do the job. But the cure. I mean, and one of the things I was wondering is … was it a more deadly disease than COVID? That or… because there was worse care and worse effort to contain it, than COVID? Because certainly the death rate, you know, the 50 million people is a lot worse. And I’m just wondering, how serious was it? Given, if you had to two batches of people — both one with COVID and one with Spanish flu — you didn’t treat either one of them, or you treated them the same, would a higher proportion of, of the people with the Spanish Flu have died then with COVID? Or are they equally dangerous, if uncared for properly?

Patrick Boyer

Well, that’s an excellent question. And it’s, I would say they’re equally they, just my own view is that they’re equally dangerous. And that it is very difficult to compare them because in the case of the Spanish flu, there was a huge effort to downplay it, to prevent information about it, and therefore allowing it to be communicated rapidly and extensively around the world with also less ability to treat it. So now what we have with the COVID pandemic, is a lot of publicity about it. warnings about it, restrictions on travel and closing down businesses and workplaces… had that been done a century ago… there’s no question that the death rate would not have been 50 million people on the planet, it would have been dramatically reduced.

Metta Spencer

Yeah, so that it was a qu- problem of containment rather than… a difference in the amount of capacity to treat it once occurred. Because I mean, I don’t think I mean, like, I’ve told my friends if I get it, don’t put me on a ventilator, just let me go, you know, because I don’t think the ventilator thing, from what I’ve seen, would be helpful enough to make to make it worthwhile given that it’s horrible experience. And so, I don’t think this, of course, they did give Trump some extra juicy kind of pills, or whatever, that seemed to have helped him and I gathered, there are some treatments now that help, you know, help people get quicker, get better quicker. But I’m not sure. I don’t think there’s any, there’s certainly no cure treatment. That’s, that’s, you know, wonderful, although the death rate I gather is going down in COVID. Now,

Patrick Boyer

Well, well, your point about the ventilator is an interesting one Metta because there’s been some secondary findings that in certainly in some of the cases, being on a ventilator was not a plus it was a negative. But you know —

Metta Spencer

they didn’t have ventilators then, though, did they?

Patrick Boyer

No, no. And, and, and in in 1918, and September of 1918, there was an 18-year-old Canadian soldier in your, in Europe, a gunner. And he had some flu, coughing a bit, kind of like cold symptoms, but he toughed it out, because that was what was being pushed, you know, stiff upper lip, now carry on, macho thing, you know, you don’t give in to anything. And so, he spent a couple more days, you know, where he was, they were outdoors or in some rain, it was cold it was getting in the fall. He was they had, they were playing some soccer, and he was playing that and kind of getting sweating and hot out in this cold and damp area. And it aggravated his condition. And he ended up in the infirmary. And in the course of the next 10-12 days, coughing gotten much worse as temperature went up to 103 degrees. He couldn’t stop coughing. He started to; he was having difficulty breathing. He started bleeding from… his nose, the tips of his fingers and his toes were turning blue because they were not getting oxygen. His breathing was very labored and strained. And then after about four or five days of that kind of suffering, clearly not able to eat or anything, getting, you know, he’s just totally incapacitated. And it was bad. He really is starting — having a hard time breathing. And he’s gasping for air. And in his medical record short, taking as many as 50 breaths a minute. That’s like almost a second between them. And if you start just gasping for air like that every second you can you can understand the panic. And that ended because his lungs were no longer able to absorb oxygen. So, all his reflex reactions in his in his body and from his brain, were telling him to, you know, breathe in that air. But all he could do with these little gasps, was not enough. And, and, you know, three doctors attending and deep… into the night he finally died. And they just watched there was nothing they could do. And that was one specific case of, you know,

Metta Spencer

kind of sad, typical symptoms. Those other people would have had much the same experience.

Patrick Boyer

Yes. And I think I think it’s you, another point you just mentioned there Meta was about treatment and whether the death rate was greater because of lack of treatment or whether people more people could recover if there was treatment. Well, if we go back to… the world’s greatest pandemic, which was the black plague, the bubonic plague that spread, you know, in the 14th century, for over eight years. People are wondering when or when is COVID going to be done? That bubonic plague lasted through Asia, North Africa and Europe for eight years. And with, you know, basically an estimated 70 to 200 million people dying, which was a huge slice of the world’s population then and if, if someone succumbed to it, they did not know — if they contracted the plague, without treatment, they would be dead, you know, within as short as three days. And, or they could hang on to about 10 days. But the numbers between those who are treated and not treated, the death rate was very high for those who had no treatment. And it was about 30% lower, the death rate for those who had any kind of treatment.

Metta Spencer

Really? Yeah. So, what, what was the treatment? I mean, what would they have done? Well, a very different kind of disease from COVID, or the Spanish flu, right? I mean, they’re not, not at all the same kind of virus?

Patrick Boyer

That’s correct… it was not this type; it wasn’t a viral disease. But the point is that we’re talking about a pandemic. And that term used by the United Nations now really, is to define any kind of illness that spreads… in through the community… through many kinds of countries that it’s really globe-encircling. You know, if it’s just, it was just in one province, or one part of one country or something, it’s a local epidemic. But that’s the terminology. And so, what we basically are looking at here is — any era — is getting the best treatment that they’ve got available, right. So, in the 1400s, that would have been separating people and trying to reduce the contagion and spreading of it. Whatever else they they did back then, it made the simple point. And I guess this is the takeaway from all three of these pandemics, the Black Death in the 1400s, the Spanish Flu century ago, and now COVID. With treatment and precautions, you’re better off than without any of that. In other words, treatment, treatment helps —

Metta Spencer

Even if you don’t really know how to treat people, doing something is better than doing nothing. Okay.

Yeah. And… being open and upfront about it. Because that was the other big problem with the Spanish flu. The effort to keep it because of the war in particular. This was happening at the time of war. And it was a back end of that war, when things were really getting dire. The British Empire ran into it thinking, Oh, we’ll be home by Christmas. So did the Kaiser he said they’d be home in Germany before the leaves of fall were on the ground. But after the — millions of people in that industrial slaughterhouse of the Great War there was so much despair, that this thing was going to be lost, that all of this sacrifice was for nothing. And the losses were agonizing. And so, it was a time of great despair. And those in command we’re trying to make a final big push with a lot of very reluctant people. That’s how we ended up with conscription being brought in, because of this. Despite the Prime Minister’s pledge at the start of the war that there wouldn’t be no conscription. It was that it was just such a wrenching, evil enterprise was underway, with that war. And —

Metta Spencer

Although you’re surely right, in pointing out the importance of the fact that this pandemic took place during the war, it is also the case and as a sociologist, I’m slightly aware of the research that other sociologists of disaster do. Now very aware of it. One of the main findings they come up with, is that in general, when there’s a disaster… officials will play it down, almost invariably… in publicity. They will almost always say Don’t worry about it, we’ve got it handled or it’s not going to be too bad or etc. And their rationale for it is generally that… we don’t want to frighten people. Because if people get into a panic, it’s going to cause more trouble than the problem itself, which is not the case. The truth is that the average person is more likely to go into denial all by himself, than… if you told the truth, so for example, you can go up and down the street with a bullhorn on your car saying, “Flee for your lives, the dam is about to break”, or, you know, some other catastrophe is going to occur. And people will sit in their homes and say, “Well, I don’t believe it”. And they won’t leave. And that tends to be too much the problem, more the problem… than anything else, getting people to take seriously, the warnings, the threats, the admonitions… if you’ve got a real problem people tend to deny.

Patrick Boyer

So Well, I think it’s, those are very valid points. And I think that when you extend that sociological analysis, to what happens over the course of the year, and say, in the province of Ontario, you look at how people responded to the first closedown, back in, you know, March, April, May… and now, when there’s more desire, and people are pent up, they’ve been closed in like, they’re getting beside themselves, and they want to get out or do things. And but most people are still serious about how they’ve got to protect themselves. But we see growing resistance, right? Because there’s that other… thing that kicks in is, how long can people live? …how many times can you hear… “wolf, wolf” … we’re still in a very dynamic situation with this. And the streets in Toronto, I remember being there. And they were like bowling alleys, you know, closed, closed on a Sunday morning, like, no cars, no people, you know, but but if you travel around the city now, … not the same? And there’s a lot of reasons for that. So, yeah, I mean, we’ve got the deniers who are always a problem. And, and I would say that, you know, if we can compare the way that China has been trying to hide information about COVID — compare that to the way Ottawa, the Canadian Army and other countries were trying to hide information about it a century ago — Well, we could compare the deniers, you know, to the people, like former President Trump and current prime minister Boris Johnson and the initial period in, in Britain, who were downplaying, and I think — it wouldn’t really be the case in Donald Trump’s behavior, but I think with many others, it is… don’t alarm the people. Yeah. And that was certainly the case with the Canadian government going let don’t get people worked up, because then they’ll have a reaction, that’s very bad. And, and when I was teaching —

Metta Spencer

It’s just a very wrong notion and officials should be cautioned not to make that assumption, because in general, it’s, it’s not true. You know, people do not panic, by, by and large, they, if anything, are resistant to, to doing the precautions that make obvious since…

Patrick Boyer

It would be a great thing to live in a political society, would it not Metta where the political leaders treated the… population as being an adult?

Metta Spencer

It would be a great thing to live in a society where the population were adults. The are voting right now… we don’t have time to go into the impeachment trial in the Senate, which is going on as we speak. But, you know, you see when the representatives of the people being absolutely oblivious to any rational considerations, because the most they’d be voted out next time. And, and that means that most people do not use good sense. I’m sorry to put it so bluntly, which has gotten to the point of making me think, well, do I really believe in democracy anymore? Can anybody really believe in democracy and more given kind of idiot behaviour that voters display. And what do we get instead? With that, I’d like to have another conversation about that. All right,

Patrick Boyer

we’ll do it, we’ll do that because we must continue to believe in democracy. Absolutely, we must.

Metta Spencer

It’s not, it’s not working. Because

Patrick Boyer

Well, you’re talking about the United States, your example was about the United States, we have our own problems with democracy in Canada. And we need to stop touting that we’re one of the world’s great democracies when increasingly we diminish the ways in which we conduct ourselves as a truly democratic society. And so, this goes to electoral reform, this goes through changing the way the House of Commons operates. And many other things, the fact that we have municipal councils in Ontario, that are elected once every four years, every four years, it used to be in Ontario councils were elected every year. On January 1. And you tell me the difference between being thoughtful about your voters and your citizens, and being accountable to them on a 12-month basis, or on a 48-month basis… those are just a couple of the many examples of how we have diminished the actual living exercise of democracy and democratic accountability in our country. And it’s… spread into the culture, you know, it’s, we can’t have a democratic society, unless within our culture, we have those values, and people really are living according to them. So, and I think that does come back on to how we’re being treated and treat and we are treating this pandemic. And I the point of I think I was trying to make and I guess why you wanted me to be with you on this program, was to be able to look at our get a clear and dispassionate view of our present circumstances, by seeing where we have been before. And what’s improved and what hasn’t. And how do we account for those differences? Because we are, we’re not little islands in time, we are part of a much bigger, mainstream flowing of people and about beliefs, values, and attitudes and memories, and medical science and sociology. It all comes together here on save the world with Metta Spencer,

Metta Spencer

Thank you. So sweet. And as somebody who had a shot at becoming Prime Minister A few years ago, I think your position is one that we should take seriously when you talk about how to democratize Canada a little bit better improves our state of the world. Everybody out to listen because you know what you’re talking about, and I appreciate that. It’s wonderful to be back in touch with you. It’s wonderful to talk to you. So, bless your heart and carry on. Take care. See ya. Bye.

T163. Russian Military in the Arctic

Posted on March 31, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T163. Russian Military in the Arctic

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 163
Panelists: Ernie Regehr
Host: Metta Spencer

Date aired: 18 January 2021
Date Transcribed: February 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: Diana Hdalevich

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. Now, have you been paying enough attention to the Arctic? Most of us haven’t. And this is time for us to pay some attention to the Arctic. So today we’re going to do that we’re going to listen to Ernie Regehr. I’m going to have a conversation with Ernie Regehr, who does know a thing or two about the Arctic. He is the former or was the founder, co-founder of Project Ploughshares, which is a very wonderful organization that studies peace research in Canada. And he’s a senior fellow at the Simons Foundation. And he knows a thing or two about the Arctic and I think we should pay some attention. So good morning, Ernie.

Ernie Regehr

Good morning to you.

Metta Spencer

Yeah, okay. I think you have recently published an article in a book about, is it about Russia in the Arctic? Or what’s your – I have to admit, I haven’t read it yet.

Ernie Regehr

It’s about the Russian military presence in the Arctic. And so, it tries to be descriptive about that presence, which is a growing presence. And then also some of the strategic implications of that. Of that, that presence. So that’s where we are the – as you know, there’s, in some circles, there’s quite a lot of growing concern about American or Russian militarization of the Arctic. But it’s subject to varieties of interpretations. There is a kind of consensus about where it’s going, I can talk a bit about that.

Metta Spencer

Everybody knows that it’s – they’re building it up, right?

Ernie Regehr

Yeah.

Metta Spencer

You know, I, I somehow give them more rights, than maybe other people would, since they have people there., you know? I mean, they have big cities in the Arctic, and we have just little bitty clusters of people compared to them. And somehow that, to my mind, it makes it more… I don’t know, is that reasonable or not?

Ernie Regehr

It’s very reasonable. I mean, it’s by far the largest Arctic state, it has, by far the longest frontier in the Arctic. So, part of the – part of the point of its military buildup, which is by the way, is a string of – there are two kinds of military buildup one is the conventional and then the other is the nuclear and the nuclear has always been there through the Cold War on the Kola Peninsula, and it remains a prominent presence and it’s part of Arctic nuclear modernization similar to that, but the Americans and the Chinese are doing. So that’s one part of it. The other part of it is just that string of conventional military facilities that go all the way from the Pacific to the Kola Peninsula,

Metta Spencer

Okay, now I knew that they have nuclear submarines up at in the Kola Peninsula that’s around Murmansk, right?

Ernie Regehr

That’s right. Yeah, Murmansk is on the Kola Peninsula,

Metta Spencer

And they have a fleet of nuclear submarines and things there. Now, but you’re – what you’ve alluded to it sounds like it’s more than marine facilities, but maybe nuclear weapons – are there nuclear weapons there or not?

Ernie Regehr

Well, the North – it’s the maritime nuclear leg of the Triad that’s based there. So, there’s a nuclear base on the Kola Peninsula, a wide number of nuclear bases on the Kola Peninsula, and then also there are nuclear submarines on the Pacific in the Kamchatka Peninsula, but the Kola, the Kola one is – there’s a major base that houses all of the long range submarines with long – with intercontinental ballistic missiles, SSBNs in other words are based in – on the Kola Peninsula, there are seven, seven of those submarines there. And one is of the newest variety. And the others are an older Delta four version of SSBN but they’re on the Kola Peninsula, and they patrol in the Barents Sea area primarily, but there are also and then there are nuclear weapons storage facilities in that area, as well as attack submarines and air bases as well,

Metta Spencer

what now? Do they ever get out and go into the Arctic Ocean? Or do they- Do they go into the Atlantic? And do they patrol the rest of the world? Do they slip around looking for things?

Ernie Regehr

Well, I think that the – we can come back to the conventional because it’s an important thing to talk about. So, let’s not lose sight of that. But on the – on this, this nuclear issue, they primarily patrol in what they regard as an Arctic Bastion, and that’s in the barren Sea area. And they patrol on that area, but then they patrol it also into the Norwegian Sea and down into the Greenland Iceland UK gap, you know, and, so they can but that’s a – they have to go through there. And they run they run into NATO patrols there. But yeah, they have access to the Atlantic Ocean, certainly there and they have access to the Pacific Ocean through the Bering Strait. But the primary patrols as understood now are in the Barents Sea. And one of the reasons that they’re building up there, their conventional military capacity is to patrol there, their Bastion to protect their – those SSBNs that are patrolling in the Bering Sea to protect them from American and NATO, anti-submarine warfare activity.

Metta Spencer

Do people know where they are? I mean, if they’re out, you know, probably around. I use pejorative things as if you know, everything they do is surreptitious, but actually, maybe they have every right to go hunting around. Can other countries find them easily? Or is this part of the – the whole strategy is to make them invisible,

Ernie Regehr

it’s part of the whole strategy to make them visible and other countries, meaning the United States really can find them and is increasingly interested in developing anti-submarine warfare capacity in the Bering Sea, the US Navy just put out an Arctic strategy document just this past week in which they – it talks about additional patrols in the Bering Sea. Now that I mean, I regard that as a very destabilizing development. I mean, the whole point of having a bastion in the Bering Sea for these SSBN patrol is in support of deterrence and an assured second-strike and for the US to increasingly and aggressively patrol with anti-submarine warfare activity. That puts those submarines in peril and in worries about a first strike, preemptive strike. So, one of the arms control proposals that is out there is that both Russia in the Arctic, and the United States in its own Atlantic and Pacific areas close to its borders should have areas in which are free of anti-submarine warfare activity, in other words, bastions for the SSBN to patrol because as long as there – as long as there is a deterrent system, you want that deterrent system to have an assured second strike and not be in danger of being attacked and a preemptive strike. And so one of the proposals for the Arctic is to leave it be from the point of view of the SSBN. Don’t go looking for them, because that’s destabilizing.

Metta Spencer

That’s, you know, kind of paradoxical, but of course, it makes sense. When you think about it, it wouldn’t occur to me that you know, we peaceful people ought to be out there defending the second strike. Yeah,

Ernie Regehr

well, we – the – what I would say what we’re doing is not defending the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons. What we’re, what we’re doing is saying you – is preventing preemptive strikes.

Metta Spencer

Yeah, I can understand the reasoning. It makes sense, but it wouldn’t actually – probably wouldn’t have occurred to me because that was

Ernie Regehr

one of the most dangerous things if, if the United States and Russia, for example, we’re in a very, very major political crisis point, if you have active anti-submarine warfare, then you have both sides thinking, well, it’s my, to my advantage to use this thing before – to use these weapons before I lose them. And so, if you have, if you have active anti-submarine patrols, you’re creating incentives to go first. And then, the last.

Metta Spencer

So, I guess the same logic would mean, you want them to be invisible if possible.

Ernie Regehr

That’s exactly – that’s exactly right. That’s why the Russians have a bastion, which we should – which the West should honour. And then that’s a stabilizing thing. And then, you work through New START and other provisions to whittle away and, and reduce those Arsenal’s until we get to the point of elimination. In the meantime,

Metta Spencer

I wasn’t aware that New START covered that,

Ernie Regehr

It covers all strategic range nuclear weapons. So that includes those, those seven submarines that are in the – that Russia has in – each with 16 missiles and multiple warheads. So that’s a – there’s a big chunk of the Russian arsenal is there.

Metta Spencer

Well, have they – has the New START? I mean, it’s been in effect since Obama, and what’s his face? That … did it? And has it actually reduced any of these maritime weapons?

Ernie Regehr

Well, and yes, it has indeed, I mean, it as you know, reduces the total, the total deployable Arsenal to 1550 warheads, and each side can decide which vehicles that whether it wants most of them put on submarines, or most of them on land-based missiles and so forth. But it’s so – it restricts them so – So since New START, these submarines have never carried the maximum number of nuclear warheads that they could, because they’re, in order to keep them under the New START limits.

Metta Spencer

We know which particular missiles have been removed.

Ernie Regehr

Yeah, there are verification provisions within the New START, and the details of which I’m not an expert on. And I don’t know

Metta Spencer

Why now, if – if the thing gets renewed as no doubt Biden will do, well, I shouldn’t say no doubt that it seems that they will. Is it – will it be further – How many more will be taken out? Is that part? I know that there’s – it’s just a matter of renewing, but does that – do they have a quota fixed number that they already plan to, to do with the next stage or what?

Ernie Regehr

No, so that the renewal will simply keep in place, the 1550 warhead maximum, and in many ways, more importantly, the verification provisions within the – in the treaty that will keep that all in place. And then the Biden administration to be has indicated that then it is committed, then to begin negotiations towards the follow-on treaty. And whether the New START is renewed for a full five years, which it can be done by just presidential decree. That’s probably the wise move. And then – and then they have that time in order to negotiate a new one and possibly involve China in it, which is what the Trump administration was.

Metta Spencer

You think that’s realistic? I mean, I knew that Trump was demanding that but I thought he was just playing, you know, fiddling around trying to disguise the fact that he wasn’t going to participate.

Ernie Regehr

No, no, I mean, I – at this point, it was a way of making sure that it wouldn’t get extended If required, but in the long run, China, of course, has to be drawn in, as do all of the nuclear power. So, whether that’s in the next round, or after that, I don’t know but the – but renewing it or extending it will allow for negotiations towards a follow on trading.

Metta Spencer

Okay, I jumped right in and started asking irrelevant questions before you had a chance to say the basic things about where things are,

Ernie Regehr

where all of the military bases that are – that the conventional military bases that are -that run about 20 of them from the Pacific Coast, right up near Bering Strait. And to all the way to Murmansk. And those, I’ll just talk about those a little bit, if you don’t mind, those are all in the process of being refurbished. And the – I mean, the primary interest in refurbishing them is one – is new issues related to sovereignty, the Arctic for all of the, the northern state has been just becoming a much more accessible place. And so, Russia has a very, very long frontier, and so needs much more the surveillance and situational awareness activity in order to monitor that frontier. So, they have, they have those facilities. And then – and you mentioned right off the top, they have major resources. And I mean, it’s a – it’s a significant part of their GDP about 20-25%. And, the population as well. So, there are there – It has vital interest in that area that it seeks to, to defend, as, and also, it’s the, it’s the northern sea route. That is the one that is opening up that you get from China wants to wants to ship to, to Western Europe, for example, if it goes up through the Bering Sea through the northern sea route along the Russian coast, and then down to UK and Western Europe, it takes about 10-11 sailing days off the trip, rather than going around Suez Canal. So, there’s a very, very keen interest in, in opening up that, that northern sea road which Russia is doing with some Chinese investments, as well. So that’s another part of it and there – and so that they the – Russia is developing a radar coverage, and air defense coverage for that whole – that whole part of the Arctic along its coast. And then – and then the more traffic that there is, the more need there is for search and rescue and emergency response capability. So, of those – of those 20 bases that are strung along from the Pacific to Murmansk, 10 of those, or nine of those actually are designated as emergency response centers. So, they have a – there’s a – there’s a major capacity for a search and rescue that is needed and required. And that really applies to all Arctic states that, that for all of them, their coastal regions, including Canada, are becoming increasingly accessible, and there’s more traffic in them. And so that the requirements for search and rescue are greater. And, and that means there’s much more of the military activity in the north now is an aid to civil authorities, civil authorities, civilian institutions, and agencies have basic responsibility for managing waterways and search and rescue and those kinds of things. And so – but it’s the military that has the capacity to do that. And that’s, that’s a big part of their, their operation. That’s a big part of the Russian military operation is aid to civil authorities as

Metta Spencer

well as – that’s a good reason. Yeah, the thing about it, you know, compared to Canada, and other states, the US, of course, has, has some, you know, Alaska and so on. What about other countries in ratio? I mean, what you say the Russian is building way up, are other countries building at the same rate, increasing military and, search and rescue and icebreakers and things like that. Are they getting into it?

Ernie Regehr

Now, I would say Norway, like Norway is the most active because it’s, it’s right on the border. And, and Russia has significant artillery bases, infantry bases, rather, in -within tens of kilometers from the border with Norway and the border with Finland. So, there are concerns there and NATO has stepped up its presence in response to that and Norway has a bigger maritime presence as well, because it’s right in the zone with Russia. Canada is – has the same requirements for increased attention to search and rescue, air defense and so forth. Most of that is civilian activity. And there – and the expansion isn’t nearly anywhere close to the rate of the Russian expansion. There’s a new naval facility for basically – for refueling at Nanisivik on – in the Canadian north. Baffin Island. And in that – and the – I think I’ve got that right. And then I guess the big Canadian issue is the North warning system, you know, what we used to know as the DEW line all of the radars across the north. And there is a feeling that with increased activity in the, in the north, and particularly around the part of Russia, North America’s own air defense capability needs to be enhanced, and particularly domain awareness, they have the radar facilities to be able to detect everything that comes within range of Canadian territory. Right now, those radars are all running along the Arctic Ocean just above the Arctic Circle, but they don’t cover the northern part of the Canadian archipelago then the Arctic, our archipelago. So that’s a thing that’s in the works for Canada. It’s nothing concrete yet. But there’s a lot of discussion in military circles about what, what the way in which that North warning system is going to be.

Metta Spencer

You know, I hadn’t even heard about the North warning system or the DEW line for 20 years. And I guess I thought I would – if you’d asked me, I would have guessed that maybe with satellites that that’s, you know, a passe thing, you know, not needed anymore. But are you saying that that is really an essential part of?

Ernie Regehr

If you want to be able to identify and every state should be able to identify aircraft that are coming into its airspace, you need to have radar, satellites don’t help you with that, because they’re not, they’re not the same kind of continuous coverage. So, you need -you need to have radar in order to do that, and the more that you have low flying and, and hyper speed, aerial, and missiles, and then it gets much more complicated, but you need to have a coastal radar capacity, which Canada has on the east and west coast, we have coastal radars. And so that’s a big thing that NORAD does is monitor the air traffic, which is all civilian coming in into Canada, but we don’t have that capacity for all of Canadian territory in the north. So, there are renewal or modernization requirements there, which is going to be expensive, and a longer-term thing, but they’re in the exploration stage

Metta Spencer

We have to have people actually manning these.

Ernie Regehr

No, I don’t think so. The North warning systems no are not staffed. They’re – so the connection is the communication links to them, but not – they don’t need to have people on base constantly, and they have to visit there presumably on a regular basis. But

Metta Spencer

well, you know, I guess the only reason for needing a lot of military presence is if you don’t trust somebody who’s your neighbor, or and – I – and so that the question, I guess is, how are folks getting along up there? I was, you know, at 20 – 10, 15 years ago, all the peace workers I knew who knew anything about the Arctic, were reassuring us that it’s one of those places on the planet where people seem to be friendly toward each other at least cooperative, and there wasn’t any real dispute happening. So, cool it, don’t worry. But I don’t hear that kind of reassurance very often. Tell me what is the real situation? Who’s our friend and who – do we have any enemies

Ernie Regehr

Well, the – I think one of the extraordinary things about the Arctic is that it has been a zone of unusual cooperation. And there’s a whole – there’s a range of international agreements and, and international political commitments to continue that cooperation and that, for example, the identification of control over the continental shelf is all – it’s all – there’s a, there’s a law-based process by which that takes place. So, I think the broader consensus in mainstream conventional and Western circles, including military circles is that the Arctic is not an area of imminent threat. There’s not an expectation of Arctic induced combat in the, in the Arctic, no one – it’s not in anybody’s interest to do that. There are some fears about spillover from conflict and other regions into the, into the Arctic, I mean, in as much as there is major military presence there. If you – if the NATO and Russia were to come into active conflict in Europe, God forbid, the likelihood of that spilling over into the Arctic is fairly strong. But the likelihood of Arctic conflict rising, escalating to a crisis, in which military combat seems a possibility, that I think is universally regarded as very, very low. But there is increasing military activity there. And there has, and there have. So, there are also increasing calls for there to be dialogue – military to – military dialogue between Russia and the NATO states, in the Arctic. And particularly, that there should be broader strategic dialogue between NATO, North America and Russia, on coming to common understandings that what are the requirements for strategic stability in the Arctic for a, for a rule of law operations, tactical and day to day operations in the Arctic, so the requirement for dialogue and that kind of diplomatic engagement is – gets – becomes much more important, and the isolation of Russia from these forums, as has happened since 2014, in the Crimea, that we need to get over that, and understand that we need to be in constant dialogue with them. And that’s not a means of, of turning a blind eye to violations of another state sovereignty. But it’s a means – it’s for the purpose of trying to maintain stability in a region, which if it goes bad, is bad for the whole globe.

Metta Spencer

Okay, I’m just trying to think of all the states that are in the Arctic, how – are all of them either members of NATO or Russia?

Ernie Regehr

There is – so that they’re – understood, there are eight Arctic states and eight states in the Arctic Council. There’s Russia. And then there are five NATO members, US, Canada, Greenland, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway, and then Sweden and Finland, which are our partners, or NATO partner states, essentially. So, it’s a fairly one-sided thing, but Arctic – but Russia is not a minority in the sense of vast land and sea areas, and resources and populations. You know,

Metta Spencer

what would you say that the, the Russian military is equivalent to the combined militaries of all these other states, the NATO states plus Finland and, and Sweden did you say?

Ernie Regehr

Yeah, well, it’s, it’s superior to all of those combined with actual facilities in the Arctic. But of course, it’s much inferior to NATO collectively, right. And the United – you know, the United States has very, very little military presence in the Arctic except for submarine patrols. That’s its main presence there – whereas – and has one operating icebreaker, whereas, you know, Russia, as we know has 40 to 50, operating,

Metta Spencer

How many does Canada have?

Ernie Regehr

I think it’s six, a half a dozen, it doesn’t have a – especially of middle range, icebreakers. So, these are coastal icebreaking. Russia is acquiring new generations of nuclear-powered icebreakers. They already have some of those, but they’re, they’re building icebreakers that will go through up to four meters of ice. So that’s a big, big, big ship. And, and, you know, the concern is that, that it can create pathways for not only for liquid natural gas tankers, but also for, for military vessels using – Is there any part of the Arctic Ocean that they – that no icebreaker could penetrate? Well, and right now, the – in – I’m not sure in that in the dead of winter, but there have been, but there have been voyages directly through the central Arctic Ocean, through the thickest part of the ice.

Metta Spencer

So, the ice there, you’d say about four meters at the worst. And so, somebody, somebody can go there if they want to. Okay. Now, you mentioned the connection between Russia and China. And I know they have some sort of strange friendship nowadays. But how friendly are they? That is, I understand that China would like to have a presence in the Arctic in some form, and is always claiming new ways of establishing a presence there, but with not – for example, a gold mine, I think recently, that was one of the things

Ernie Regehr

they wanted to buy it from a Canadian one

Metta Spencer

But would Russia support China’s requests to be part of the Arctic? I don’t know whether they want to join the Arctic Council, or I guess they couldn’t, but what and how are they trying to get their toehold there? And does Russia play along with that?

Ernie Regehr

Well, I – the Chinese, I think it’s correct to say, do not really have a keen interest in a military presence. I mean, some people fear an Arctic military presence by China. But China wants a shipping route through the Arctic. And obviously, and it certainly wants access to rare earth minerals in Greenland and Canada and so forth. I mean, it has mining interests. It has a lot of commercial interests that it sees potential value in the Arctic, but a big part of it is the shipping route. And China’s certainly helping Russia and building an infrastructure for a shipping route through its Arctic so that there’s cooperate cooperation there. There’s no question.

Metta Spencer

Well, if we open or if we, as if you and I personally will open the Arctic, but if somebody opens the Arctic shipping, I would assume that it would be international that any anybody with a rowboat who wants to go there can do it? It wouldn’t be specifically China’s shipping route, it would be international, right?

Ernie Regehr

Yeah, absolutely. And it runs in the northern sea route, runs entirely through the exclusive economic zone of Russia, not through Russia and territorial waters, in some parts of it do, depending on the ice conditions. But all it’s within the exclusive economic zone. So that gives Russia some obligations in order to do environmental controls and those kind of kind of things that have to happen in a shipping.

Metta Spencer

What an economic zone is

Ernie Regehr

Well the – so that the – I’m the wrong person to explain this. I’m not an international law expert, but essentially, along the coastline there, there’s – 12 miles out are territorial waters. And that’s the exclusive zoning the same as the land, it’s – you have sovereignty over that area, and then 200 miles out, is you have exclusive economic rights within that, within that zone. But these are international waters. And everybody has the right to travel them. The Americans charge and I’m and I think the Russians give them reason to that, that Russia is really claiming it’s those exclusive economic zone waters as being Russian waters and aiming to manage them as if they were territorial sovereign waters of Russia, and requiring other states to get permission, so forth. So, the United States in this new naval document is talking increasingly about doing freedom of navigation missions through there just to establish, establish the fact that these are international waters that everybody has a right to,

Metta Spencer

Okay. Also been a few years ago anyway, and I don’t know whether it’s settled, there was a, there was a dispute based on where the shelf of the, of the continent ends or drops off or something like that, that the water rights and the claims to certain parts of the ocean would be settled on the basis of where – I guess there’s a drop off

Ernie Regehr

Yeah, Law of the Sea that is now being all of the Arctic states are putting in proposals to define their, their continental shelf where it goes in and goes beyond it can go beyond the exclusive economic zone. And that gives you right to the resources on the ocean floor. Exclusive. Right, I see the resources on the open of ocean floor. And so, in the North Pole area that means both, I mean, Russia has laid claims on that, as has Greenland as has Canada, I think that’s it. But these are so – but it’s understood that these disputes will be settled by scientists, not by soldiers. Depends on science, collecting scientific data on where the, where the continental shelf…

Metta Spencer

and that still has to be determined.

Ernie Regehr

Yeah, all their claim claims are in and that will take a long time, under the Law of the Sea for that all to be to be settled. No one has immediate access to that area, in a way.

Metta Spencer

And so, there’s stuff down there that people might want to drill for or what. I hope you’re not gonna put oil wells and stuff there.

Ernie Regehr

That’s exactly right. But I – it’s so – it’s not sure, I mean, I don’t, I just don’t know enough about it to know what all kinds of potential resources are. But that, that’s in the process of being settled. And there was the – something called the Ilulissat declaration 2008. In Ilulissat, town in Greenland, where all of the Arctic states met, and committed themselves to settling Arctic disputes according to existing international law, which is Law of the Sea. And that was a, that was an important, important declaration in principle that reinforced the Arctic as an arena of cooperation, rather than competition leading to – come to conflict. And in 2018, that Declaration was again, was renewed. And so that’s part of the – and in the – in for the International Arctic Ocean. There has been an all-Arctic agreement to prohibit any fishing that becomes available in the central Arctic Ocean until such time that there have been scientific studies done to assess the nature of the fish stocks and how much fishing can be, can be controlled. And that’s an agreement of all of the Arctic states, including, but non-Arctic states as well, including Japan and, and China. Well, that’s just another, that’s another example of the cooperative milieu of the Arctic.

Metta Spencer

Yeah. Well now tell me about Novaya Zemlya. Right. That’s, that’s where they tested nuclear weapons. I don’t know what else they did up there. But doesn’t sound like a place anybody would want to live. What, what – Is there still military activity going on up there? And tell me about it?

Ernie Regehr

Yeah, there is a new, there’s a new base being developed there now. And it. It’s interesting because it’s one of those trefoil bases, one of these that you may have seen pictures in the newspapers of this three-pronged base of big military facilities that can house several hundred Russian troops throughout the year. And it’s in – they’re quite grand facilities that have everything from a chapel to gymnasiums to all of this. And so there, there are station troops there, as well as radar facilities and, and air defense facilities are out of there

Metta Spencer

Is the place contaminated? I worry, you know, you hear about things like places where they have – where there are sunken submarines with, you know, a lot of radioactive material that nobody knows how to get at anymore. Is the Arctic in general, a, a safe environment? Or are there radioactive contaminants floating around up there?

Ernie Regehr

Yeah, well, I think that there is. I mean, there’s been a lot of cleanup that was done through this international partnership agreement that Canada was part of, and there’s still major legacy from the cold war and nuclear weapons development by that. I mean, that’s, that’s about as much detail as I’m…

Metta Spencer

They haven’t been testing any weapons, or at least nuclear explosives there for what, 20-30 years. How long? I don’t know.

Ernie Regehr

I know, I don’t know for how long but for a long time, yeah. I – there’s a de facto moratorium, but when it began, I’m not recalling right now.

Metta Spencer

But now I know that people in Kazakhstan talk about the pollution still remaining around Semipalatinsk. So, I wondered if maybe the same thing was true around – as some – I don’t know.

Ernie Regehr

Yeah. Yeah. No, I’m sure I’m sure it is.

Metta Spencer

I wouldn’t volunteer to serve up there if I were you. Okay, all this is fascinating. Any advice to the world? Can – what would – if you were in charge of trying to make steps toward nuclear disarmament and toward really, an end to any hostilities, and you were responsible for the Arctic, what kinds of new decrees would you issue?

Ernie Regehr

Well, I would simply emphasize the principle of the Ilulissat declaration and so that declaration is important and emphasize that the – this – the – all of the intention towards – attention towards on the resumption of great power competition so far, though, I mean, I think we have to make a very conscious effort to keep the Arctic out of that. And recognize that – I mean inevitably it’s part of it because it’s a major part of the Russian nuclear arsenal is there but we need to stabilize that and prevent destabilizing anti-submarine warfare patrols in the Arctic and make sure that the Arctic does not kind of become a climate, which negatively impinges upon the pursuit of nuclear arms control and elsewhere

Metta Spencer

and protect Santa Claus ourselves.

Ernie Regehr

That would be a priority, of course.

Thank you.

Ernie Regehr

NORAD is on that so we’re fine.

Metta Spencer

Okay, this has been fun. Thank you so much.

Ernie Regehr:

Pleasure. Take care.

T202. COVID Work

Posted on March 20, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T202. COVID Work

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 202
Panelists: Ronald St. John and Jon Cohen
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 10 March 2021
Date Transcribed: 19 March 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: Adam Wynne

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. If you’re thinking of either getting COVID or getting a vaccination, you’ve come to the right place, because today we’re going to talk about COVID vaccination and all things connected with the equitable handling of this pandemic. I have with me two very knowledgeable people. Jon Cohen is a staff writer on Science Magazine, who covers epidemics. And it looks like he’s been doing it a long time and knows his way around a few viruses. And he’s, I guess, where are you, Jon?

Jon Cohen

I’m based in San Diego.

Metta Spencer

Oh, good. All right. I’m a Californian by upbringing.

Jon Cohen

I’m half Canadian also.

Metta Spencer

All right. And in Ottawa, a friend of mine, Dr. Ronald St. John, is ready to talk to us about his experience as an epidemiologist. He spent a number of years with the World Health Organization, especially the Pan American end of things or side of things, and then was with Canada’s Public Health Service, and was in charge of SARS and Canada’s response to SARS. So I think he and Jon Cohen have things to say to each other. I’m going to let them mostly tell us what they’re up to. But let’s start with Jon, because I believe you said yesterday you had an article you wrote about the pending surplus of vaccines. Can you tell us what you have in mind on this issue?

Jon Cohen

I did a story with Kai Kupferschmidt, our correspondent in Berlin, that looked at the contract agreements that the wealthy countries of the world have made for acquisition of COVID-19 vaccine. It seems preposterous right now to talk about surplus given that everyone’s scrambling to get vaccines, even in wealthy countries. But the reality is that UNICEF catalogues how many people could be vaccinated by the purchase agreements that the wealthier countries of the world have made that far exceed their own needs. So, for example, the United States and Canada both have agreements to have over 500% of their populations vaccinated. Which leads to a whole lot of people who could be vaccinated if those purchase agreements actually lead to product and purchased product. In the United States, which would be the largest over purchase, we could vaccinate – with what we have committed to buy – 1.5 billion more people. That’s a lot of people. Right now, there’s something called the COVAX facility that was set up by World Health Organization and its partners to ensure that there would be access and equity to vaccines around the world for COVID-19, unlike what happened with pandemic influenza in 2009, which was a fiasco where the wealthy world hoarded vaccine. So COVAX is a great mechanism, it is a fantastic idea. But to date, it only has committed to rolling out enough vaccine for 247 million doses of two-dose vaccines. You can do the math, cut it in half, for the world, for the poor countries of the world. And the US, in contrast, by the end of May anticipates vaccinating all adults, which is about 200 million people. And by the vaccine that we have purchased already here in the United States, come the end of July, we could have 200 million more people vaccinated. What are we going to do with that vaccine? The US may well donate it, and it may well donate it to COVAX, and COVAX is encouraging countries to donate through the facility. But there has been no formal discussion and plan about how to do it. I quote Nicole Lurie in my story, who was a top official at the Obama administration during 2009 flu epidemic, saying that when the US went to give away that vaccine, there were a gazillion obstacles that surfaced, including the need to fumigate a pallet of vaccine before it could be sent to the Philippines, which delayed that shipment by two weeks. So you have to have these discussions now, to figure out how to do that very positive thing later. It can’t just happen with a snap of the fingers. And if you look at Canada and the United States and about a dozen other countries that have fairly large populations over 25 million people. I calculated with Kai that there are nearly three billion people who could be vaccinated with those surplus vaccines. It’s huge.

Ronald St. John

I agree, Jon. it’s amazing to me that Canada had reserved contracts for vaccinating three times its population roughly. And then reserve two million doses out of COVAX. We have no need to withdraw any vaccine from COVAX, but we did reserve two million doses, which astounded me and I do not understand the rationale for that. But it’s a little bit like so many things in the world, where we have countries and have not countries. And our inability to distribute things equitable across the divide between the have and the have nots is an ongoing problem.

Jon Cohen

There’s a wrinkle to this and it’s that the United States is the hardest hit country in the world by COVID. And so, the United States has a desperate need for a vaccine that some countries don’t share. So, there is a reason for vaccine nationalism in the United States. We’ve had more death than anywhere else. We have suffered tremendously. And you can understand from a politician’s point of view, why they cannot discuss donating vaccine right now, when there are still people here in California where I live, who are terrified of becoming infected, who cannot access a vaccine, and who even meet the criteria that have been established here for being vaccinated. It is a mess in this country if you want to get vaccinated. I became vaccinated. I’m 62. Because I volunteered at a superstation that vaccinates thousands of people a day. So, I’m considered a medical volunteer. And indeed, my working at that superstation puts me at great risk, because I’m in close contact with huge numbers of people. But that’s an exceptional way to get vaccinated. And I’m not, by the criteria that exists, otherwise eligible. So, I understand why countries… as one person said to me about the United States, you cannot say no to governors, and yes to other presidents. That is political suicide and maybe even foolish, at the same time. We’re moving at such a rapid pace that I think people are blinded by the surplus that’s going to happen. We’re going to be awash in vaccine way before people realize.

Metta Spencer

How soon? When do you think that might happen?

Jon Cohen

Given that the United States is the largest purchaser and that Biden has committed to vaccinating all adult Americans by the end of May. We will have a surplus in the United States, I predict, certainly by the end of July. Because that’s when we have delivery commitments of Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, and Pfizer for far more product than we can possibly use. Then there will become a question of: do we want to vaccinate children in the United States? Do we need booster shots for people to combat the variants that are circulating and might require stronger immunity? Is there a durability issue that requires booster shots? Those are all real and salient reasons to reserve some vaccine and not give everything away. But this is a dynamic, and you need the top people sitting down regularly to discuss how to adjust. And that’s what this whole pandemic has been about – adjusting. There is no certainty here. And that’s the big fallacy that I think keeps tripping up countries is that they keep pretending that they know what’s going to happen tomorrow. They don’t. We don’t.

Ronald St. John

Jon, there’s an interesting phenomenon and I’d be interested in your comment. And that’s when there is an emergency situation – like COVID – and when there is a certain ingredient or measure that needs to be used, like having a vaccine or getting a vaccine or some commodity that becomes in short supply – the international markets collapse and countries start to scramble under nationalism to get a hold of that commodity at all costs. And globalization sort of goes out the window. How can we deal with this in the future? Just let me give you a personal anecdote: During the anthrax letters scare in the early ’80s, early ’20s (2000s), there was a need in Canada to purchase some antibiotics for a national emergency stockpile. When I went onto our standard suppliers of antibiotics, within an hour, I was told that I had 40 minutes to make a decision about purchasing X, Y, or Z, because there were 4 or 5 other countries in line. And recently Canada actually ended up with a shortage of vaccine, of COVID vaccine, because we were dependent on the production facility in Belgium. So, this whole thing collapses in like lightning speed. And I’m curious about how you think we can deal with this.

Jon Cohen

Yeah, I think that, you know, you raise a really important point that we are defined by how we behave during a crisis, not how we behave during, you know, simpler times – – and we behave badly during crises typically. The COVAX facility is new, and it’s a clever idea to address this. But we see its limitations already, given that there are over 100 countries in the world that have not vaccinated anyone. So ideally, the world would say, as a Kumbaya world, hey, the priority is health care workers, frontline responses, responders everywhere. And once you as a wealthy country have covered your most vulnerable health care workers, start sharing at that moment. And there are people who argue that’s a huge mistake we’re making. France has donated 5% of its vaccine right now. And Norway says it’s going to do a 1-to-1 donation of its vaccine. But Norway has 4, 4 and a half million people France has only vaccinated 5 million of its own, of course 6 million today. It’s nothing it’s a drop in the bucket. So I think what we need to do is create more COVAX-like facilities for these responses that address things other than just vaccines, PPEs for example, our you know, a classic thing where we run out of masks and gloves. Why don’t we have a global facility that is set up to address… there will be more pandemics, Ron, you know that and I know that we’re not out of this, it’s not like we’re gonna emerge here and somehow have taken care of the pandemic problem. (dog barks in background) My boss is yelling at me, I’m gonna let her out of the office in a moment. But I think you’re spot on that we have to come up with mechanisms that say in the future, this will happen again. And history will repeat itself, there will be hoarding, and there will be, it’s a natural inclination to take care of your own. And what you’re seeing here as well is China squashed it’s epidemic against COVID without biomedical interventions. So, China has been using vaccine as a diplomatic tool. And so, then you enter in this other realm of geopolitics, where commodities become tools to establish economic relationships or political advantages. And that in itself, creates dilemmas. You know, Russia is doing the same thing with its Sputnik vaccine, which it’s selling, but it’s inexpensive, and it’s aggressively marketing it and saying to the world, we are good neighbors, we are good people. Now that well, that well may be true. I’m not arguing that what they’re doing is bad. But it creates geopolitical dynamics that ultimately shouldn’t exist. You know, we don’t really want that. I’m gonna let her [the dog] out. But I can hear you.

Ronald St. John

Right.

Jon Cohen

Jon, I’ve often thought that there was an argument, there is an argument, that from a country’s perspective, that what is over there in the other world can be in my backyard in no time, Therefore, we should help solve the problem over there, because it’s in our own in our own self-interest, to deal with things, but that doesn’t seem to gather a whole lot of, of credibility or, you know, force, when you get up against something like COVID somehow.

Metta Spencer

Yeah, I think that the whole spirit of globalization should be enhanced by the experience of being in a pandemic, but it’s so clear that germs do not respect borders, and that people travel across borders. And I would have thought that we would be, you know, exactly singing Kumbaya by now. But if anything, it looks to me like it’s gone the other direction that there’s more nationalism, you know, borders, harder borders than then before. Is that your impression or do we have something hopeful to look forward to in those?

Jon Cohen

Oh, I think I there’s been more scientific collaboration and openness than ever before, I do see progress. And I see scientists communicating. You know, one of the, I hate to say this, because we’re all so sick of Zoom. But what Zoom has done is it has put groups of people from different countries in the same room, having discussions day in and day out, where they don’t have to get on airplanes and fly to places or even have bad telephone connections. We are communicating information more aggressively with more openness than ever before. So, I do you see progress. But what we’re talking about the goal we’re talking about runs up against, I don’t know if you know, the old-world health organization, or Mata declaration that health care is a right, and the notion that we all are in this together, the reality is that poor people do not have the access to medical care that rich people have. That’s a reality. And it’s true in every country. And it’s true between countries. And we’re not going to erase that problem. Just as we’re not going to give everyone in the world screens on their windows and air conditioners, and cars that don’t break, there are there are always going to be divisions of wealth, and your access, Metta, to healthcare is going to be better than someone else in Canada who doesn’t have your resources. That’s just reality. And your connections to doctors and nurses is going to give you better care than other people. And that’s just reality. So, I think we have to find some sweet spot in the middle, where we say, Okay, we have a universal base that we are going to adhere to. And then if you’re wealthier, yes, you get better, you get more, but there is a base that is agreed upon. And that’s what COVAX is attempting to do, can we achieve it? Well, I think we need leadership from the G20. And from the wealthier countries of the world to really put money into this, and not just talk. And that’s a big ask. And you know, politically, you don’t get that far with your own people, unless you’re some small Scandinavian country. And that’s why we see all these great issues coming to the fore in these small Scandinavian countries, because they have buy-in in from their populations of 5 million people. My country is 328 million people. We are incredibly divisive and divided and heterogeneous. And look what happened in our last election. We had people attack our own capital. We’re a very, very split place. And so to get buy in in the United States, is tough. And it’s not a politically attractive thing for a president to say, you know, we’re going to lead the way here, but that’s the kind of leadership we need.

Metta Spencer

How far do you think Biden is going to go with his progressiveness?

Jon Cohen

I don’t know. I mean, we’re, we’re in a very uncertain time politically in this country. We did just see a $1.9 trillion passage of a of a bill that will address COVID more aggressively than it’s been addressed, but it was completely along party lines.

Metta Spencer

Does it cover this COVAX thing too?

Jon Cohen

Well, that that occurred earlier, Biden committed to COVAX actually, the Trump administration in December, the Congress, not the Trump Administration, the US Congress wanted to back COVID. And when Biden was still not president, but the elect, he backed this, and he has put money on the barrelhead. So yes, the Biden Administration is strongly backing COVID. And the Biden administration importantly, rejoined the World Health Organization. I mean, remember, Donald Trump’s Administration pulled out of WHO during a pandemic, which to the world that I live in, was, are you kidding?

Ronald St. John

I was gonna also talk a little bit about internal I mean, within country equity. We know that different segments of our populations have are currently having differential access to the vaccine, even when they’re on the list of desired people to be vaccinated simply because of perhaps access issues, or I’d be interested in how we can address the internal inequity within a country.

Jon Cohen

Yeah, enormous, enormous challenge.

Ronald St. John

You’ve touched on it a little bit because you’ve noticed that there is there is inequity built in, within societies, but this is particularly disturbing to me because we just need to get everybody possible vaccinated.

Jon Cohen

Yeah, in the United States, we have disproportionate burden of disease in African American communities in particular and in Latino communities. And there has been a great effort by people running the vaccine, steering the vaccine ship, to try to have leaders from those communities talk publicly about being vaccinated and to make it something that’s desired. There’s been a lot of vaccine hesitancy in African American communities in particular. But I think it’s also important to note that the Pew Foundation did a survey that found that the most hesitant people are White Republicans. Not that it divides politically more than it divides by racial or ethnic groups. The efforts have to make it simpler to get a vaccine. And it is so terrifically difficult to get a vaccine in the United States. That communities that aren’t as connected to the healthcare system to begin with, which we know is the central problem for African American and Latino communities are going to be left out. And you know, your first Americans are, what do you call it Canadian?

Ronald St. John

You’re our Aboriginal population, our Indigenous people. We have the same kinds of situations here, slightly different ethnic groups. But we do have the same problem.

Jon Cohen

And it’s a disconnect from healthcare, isn’t it? I mean, isn’t that the central problem?

Ronald St. John

Yes.

Jon Cohen

That’s a systemic problem.

Ronald St. John

And, and also some ethnic profiling that takes place. I mean, the Asian Canadians have been, I’ve had some difficulties with discriminatory remarks, and so forth, during the COVID situation here in Canada.

Jon Cohen

I think what we need to do is learn from others successes. And we know, for example, with HIV, that one of the great advances in terms of antiretroviral treatment was bringing testing to the community to find who was infected in a community, and then bringing drugs to the community in a way that was simpler. That didn’t require getting on a bus and riding for an hour to get your drugs. But instead, people would come to you maybe, and we did this with tuberculosis and the direct observed therapy where you go door to door and make sure people are swallowing their pills. I think we have to get aggressive about it and target communities that want vaccine that can’t easily access them, maybe by having mobile clinics that go out and do it, or by setting up…

Metta Spencer

About those people who are hesitant though … I really don’t understand the logic or what their rationale is. But to what extent is it possible to push them? You are even I think I’ve heard some employers can require it of their employees. And I guess there’s a legal question of whether or not that is violating their rights. Help me get clarity about what the rules are, and should be, about insisting that people take the vaccine.

Ronald St. John

I’m going to jump in right here for because what you’re opening also, Metta, is the doorway to the whole notion of a passport or certificate for the vaccinated against the unvaccinated. And I’m, I’m really quite concerned about how the ethics and the law is going to play out, are going to play out over that.

Jon Cohen

They’re very tricky questions.

Ronald St. John

Jon, have you been thinking about passports?

Jon Cohen

Yeah, a great deal. And I think Israel is far ahead of everyone because they vaccinated such a huge percentage of the population. And Israel has been criticized for requiring people to show vaccine documentation to go to a shopping mall, for example. And what Israel says in reply is, “Hey, you know, you don’t have to go to a shopping mall. And if you don’t want to get vaccinated, don’t go shopping, don’t go to the shopping mall.” And they’re using it something as something of an incentive for people. I think there is a very troubling aspect to passports in terms of people who cannot access vaccines, right? And then you have an equity issue because they can’t go places other people can go at no fault of their own. So that a serious consideration. But the flip side is that we’ve used yellow fever vaccine immunization cards for as long as I’ve been on airplanes. And you know, I have my yellow fever vaccine card with me whenever I travel. And I accept that that helps slow the spread of yellow fever, the same thing was done for a time with smallpox, when that was a problem. There was an immunization card that you needed to show. So, I don’t think that the idea itself is a bad idea. But with yellow fever, anyone who wants the vaccine can get the vaccine. And the same was true with smallpox. So, the access and equitable distribution of product wasn’t at the center of the dilemma. I think it’s ultimately a matter of timing a year from now, when everyone can get a vaccine anywhere. I hope that’s true a year from now, the passport idea takes on a different sheen than it does today. I’m going to start traveling because I’m fully immunized at the end of this month. And I’m going to be traveling with my immunization card. And it is going to benefit me in some locales to have that card. And I think that’s wise, I think it should, because I think there is a different immune status in my body, that should be taken into consideration in terms of the risks that I pose to others, although we don’t really know how much transmission occurs yet, through vaccinated people. And certainly, vaccinated people can become infected. But I would anticipate that their viral loads would be far lower, and they’d be far less likely to transmit, we have to see the data. But that is logical. Right?

Ronald St. John

Right. Right. It’s beginning to look like that’s true.

Jon Cohen

I think I think there’s data building that that’s true. But the getting it the vaccine hesitancy question, I, I’ve studied vaccine hesitancy in great depth. It goes back to the first vaccine that Edward Jenner made against smallpox. And the England reaction to that vaccine led to the Luddite movement, which oppose sewing machines and industrialization, creating an anti-vaccine movement in the 1800s. And that movement has ebbed and flowed ever since. And there was a Supreme Court case in the United States in the early 1900s, about the smallpox vaccine. And the issue is ultimately about the fact that healthy people don’t want to stick needles into their bodies. And they ask, why are you going to… I mean, think about how we use needles, right? Who gets needles? Well, people have diabetes, for insulin; people who inject drugs that we think are dangerous, opiates, in particular; and most of us have never injected ourselves with anything – all of us have taken pills. And if a vaccine is a pill, it alters the hesitancy equation to some degree, but the idea of an injection into a healthy person into my perfect baby, you’re going to do this to my baby, that in and of itself, it’s a logical, rational concern, to not want to cause harm to some human body that seems perfectly healthy. But, you know, it’s the whole question of what is prevention? And how do we understand and think about prevention. And we are very bad at that as humans. And the way to address vaccine hesitancy is not to simply flood people with facts, because it’s an emotional response. In many ways. It is not factually based. And part of what leads people to change their minds about hesitancy is seeing others who benefit from the intervention. And I watched HIV denialism very closely where people didn’t believe HIV caused AIDS that evaporated, why did it go away? It went away, because very good antiretroviral drugs came out. And as they became accessible, people everywhere, saw their dying neighbor, get up out of bed and go back to work. So, anyone who was living with HIV who didn’t believe the virus was harmful, directly saw the benefit. We are now directly seeing the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines. We’re seeing deaths plummeting in settings, like nursing homes where they’re widely used, and we’re seeing Israel with its early data. And as those data show us, the benefit, hesitancy is diminishing, and that will continue and it will become more dramatic. As people who are hesitant in high-risk situations die. Unfortunately, that will happen. There will be nurses and doctors and people in nursing homes, who refuse vaccines, and everyone in their setting will be fine. And they will be put on a ventilator and die a horrible death. And people will see that and that will diminish hesitancy I’m sorry to put it that starkly, but I do think that’s what’s going to happen.

Ronald St. John

If I may just add this, I appreciate the way you’re putting the whole issue, Jon, because in public health we have such a tendency to try to explain to people what the statistics are. So, we are just reading a study with healthcare workers in the UK. On the frequency of anaphylactic shock following the Pfizer vaccine. And it was 0.25%. Well, you know, what does a person understand about point 0.25%? And you say, oh, well, that’s, that’s 2.5 people per 10,000. You know, I understand that. But the average person I just stated, doesn’t.

Jon Cohen

It doesn’t mean anything. “And if it’s me, if it’s me, it’s me, if I’m that person, it’s me.”

Ronald St. John

Exactly. I often said that, people I remember back in HIV days, people would ask me, what’s my risk of getting HIV and I would say, 0 or 100. For you, as a person, because either you get it or you don’t. As a as a population, it’s different. But I find it very interesting that I think in public health, we just don’t present things quite as clearly as we need to for the average person.

Metta Spencer

But Jon, if I can ask why the Republican, what is it? White male Republicans, is that the people that you say are resisting it most? Why would they be any more hesitant than anybody else if it has something to do with the experience of seeing people get well or die?

Jon Cohen

Well, the narrative that came out of the Trump White House began in February of 2020. With “this is not a big deal, it’s going to go away. Hey, it doesn’t really cause harm.” And that then be mutated into this a scamdemic. It’s not real. It’s a political tool being used by Democrats to get rid of Donald Trump. And let’s not bother wearing masks, and the President refused to wear a mask for a very long time. And, hey, you know, this just is like the flu. And it’s just something that’s just gonna come and go, and by springtime, it will be gone. All of that created a false narrative about the dangers. And in the Republican Party, it also became a rallying cry to try and win an election. And so, there’s residue left over from that. The hesitancy that now exists in Republicans, I predict will plummet as data… not just as data emerges, but as people witness reality. Reality is a really, really strong medicine. It just, you know, when you see, if you ride a motorcycle, you’re taking a risk. And if you see somebody in a motorcycle accident, and you see how horrific it is, it makes you rethink your risk taking I ride waves. I surf and I surf large waves, but I don’t serve the kind of giant waves the people who surf giant wave surf. And in part, that’s because I have been humbled so many times in the water, where I’ve reached my limits, and I’ve nearly drowned. And I’ve seen other people drown. And it changes how I approach that risky behavior. I still surf. And I still love it. And but I’m much more calculating about how I make decisions. And I think that’s true for all of us. We, the experiences we see that are frightening, lead us to modify our behaviors, and the experiences we have of things that are positive, that we see, really great things happen to communities. Like my mom plays Mahjong, she’s 91. She’s from Winnipeg. And yesterday, my mom and 3 of her friends who are all doubly vaccinated, had a Mahjong game without their masks on. And she sent me a video and it was just beautiful. And as people share things like that, of their relatives, that will lead to hesitancy diminishing because they see the joy that the vaccine has brought to people, they love. And they’re going to see grandparents hugging grandchildren, they haven’t hugged in a year, that’s happening all over the place, and it’s going to happen more and mor. And children will return to schools. And the joy that comes from this, from the protection of the teachers in the school through vaccination will have an impact. I’m certain of that I think we are driven tremendously by hope. I think that’s what humans are made of. And when we see hope in action, it changes us. So that’s my pollyannish view of it that my cynical skeptical side kicks in and I think there’s some people who are anti-vaccination. It doesn’t matter. They don’t believe in vaccines. They’re a minority. And there was a study done that I wrote about some years ago, in I think it was Michigan, where they said to parents who didn’t want to vaccinate their children, okay? You just have to come to the public health department and have a meeting for 30 minutes to discuss your concerns and then we’ll give you a waiver. Vaccination rates, steeply climbed, and hardly anyone went to the meeting. They couldn’t be bothered to drive down town and pay for parking and go listen to somebody. They weren’t anti-vaccine, they were hesitant. And if you created the slightest obstacle, they said, “Oh, to hell with it, I’m gonna vaccinate my kid.” So, I think that’s another clever way to address some of this and to separate anti-vaccine from hesitancy because they’re extremely different things. And most people are not anti-vaccine, they’re hesitant. And that’s different.

Ronald St. John

I think you’re right. I think if this passport thing, if you if people find out, you just cannot get on an airplane and go anywhere to visit your uncle, or to go to Miami or whatever, without evidence that you have been vaccinated, I think that may persuade a lot of people to get the vaccine.

Jon Cohen

I do too. And I think there’s a concept also that we haven’t talked about, and it’s about risk reduction and harm reduction. You know, in the HIV field, it became very clear that if you provided clean syringes to people who shoot heroin, that they don’t spread HIV amongst themselves, the heroin doesn’t cause HIV transmission. It’s the dirty syringe and needle. And people politically said, Oh, no, don’t do that you’re encouraging heroin use” and other people said “No, we’re reducing the risk of harm. They’re still going to be harmed by shooting opiates, but we’re reducing their risks because they won’t get HIV” and that had been hugely successful. We have to think about COVID-19 vaccination in terms of harm reduction. It doesn’t eliminate risk. That’s not what it does. It vastly reduces your risk of becoming severely ill, it may well eliminate your risk of being hospitalized and dying, for a period of time. And it may well vastly reduce your risk of transmitting the virus to others. That’s what it does. It’s not eliminating anything right now that we know of other than hospitalization and death, which do seem to be eliminated by the initial responses to these vaccines. That might wane over time, it likely will. But right now, I can say with great certainty that nine vaccines have presented efficacy data, and no one who has received any one of these vaccines – and we’re now talking about millions of people – no one has developed, has died.

Ronald St. John

Yeah, you’re absolutely right. I was asked a question. I was asked: “Well, there are now four vaccines approved here in Canada, and they’re not quite all the same. Should I wait and choose my vaccine?” I said, you take the next vaccine that comes along. Because they all stop death.

Jon Cohen

You know, Ron, we know what the virus does. So, you want to calculate precisely what a vaccine does? Give me a break? Right. You know.

Metta Spencer

I have the one question that I haven’t heard a definitive answer to though. And I don’t know whether you have the answer. To what extent are the existing vaccines good against the variants? I mean, if you take a vaccine, what is left for you as a risk of one of the South African or other variants?

Jon Cohen

Well, the best data we have come from the Johnson and Johnson study, which was in partially in South Africa, and no one who received a single dose of that vaccine ended up being hospitalized or dying. Even though 85 to 90% of the people who became infected and who are becoming infected in South Africa are becoming infected by a variant that can dodge antibody responses. The antibody responses are but one arm of the immune system, and everyone’s gauging the power of the variants based on their ability to escape from the antibody. But we have a whole other arm of the immune system that behaves in an entirely different way. Antibodies, for the most part, prevent viruses from infecting a cell by glomming on to them and blocking their ability to dock onto a cell. But when cells become infected, we have a whole other arm of the immune system that our T-cells orchestrate that targets and clears infected cells. And these variants are not getting around T-cell immunity as far as we can tell, to any significant degree. And that’s likely why people are doing well, even in situations where the variants that are most concerning are predominant. So, the variants are real, they’re a concern, they do weaken the ability of vaccines to prevent mild disease, they probably lead to more transmission. But in terms of what we really care about, let’s remember we got into this lockdown situation, because hospitals were overwhelmed. ICUs were overflowing in Wuhan in northern Italy, in Spain, in Iran, in New York City, in Seattle. Hospitals were collapsing, because they couldn’t handle it. Vaccines prevent that.

Metta Spencer

Yeah.

Jon Cohen

So, you know, smell the coffee here.

Metta Spencer

You don’t have to convince me about the vaccine. We’re not quite as far advanced in in Canada as the US is, we’re a couple of months behind I think in our ability to make the vaccine available. But I’m certainly I’m on board with that.

Ronald St. John

That matter was due predominantly to the supply interruption issue. When the production… since we get our vaccine from Belgium, and the production vaccine, the Pfizer production capacity in Belgium was halted for a while because they wanted to expand their production, you have to stop the assembly line to do that. We had a shortfall of weeks with very limited supply. And now we’re in a catch-up phase.

Metta Spencer

So, you think we will get caught up?

Ronald St. John

I think it’s it seems to be accelerating right now at a pretty good pace. And we may, you know, the Prime Minister promised everybody would be vaccinated by the end of September, which is a great goal. Now people are talking beginning and talk about being able to meet that goal a couple months earlier. Let’s hope so.

Jon Cohen

There’s something else to keep in mind here and probably is true in Canada as well as the United States. We do not do mass vaccination of adults as a routine thing. We do flu vaccine, but you go to your local pharmacy and get a flu vaccine here in the United States. And there’s no signup process. There’s nothing or the Shingrix vaccine for shingles. There was a shortage of that vaccine, I had to get on a waiting list. But it wasn’t a sense of urgency about shingles. Because shingles is not a seasonal thing. It’s like shingles is in my body. I don’t want to get that virus. So, we don’t have a history of mass vaccination campaigns of adults. We do have children, pediatricians routinely, you know, vaccinate. That’s one of their main jobs. And in the United States, it’s a birth cohort of 4 million a year. And we figured that out. We’ve got that down. But our systems have to figure out the kinks of mass vaccination campaigns for adults. And as we figure out those kinks, it happens in a couple of months’ time. Everything speeds up.

Ronald St. John

Yeah, yeah, no, you’re absolutely right. I don’t think there’s ever been, certainly in this nation’s history, a mass campaign to vaccinate adults. We had mass campaigns for polio and kids.

Jon Cohen

Right.

Ronald St. John

But I think that was the last time we had mass campaigns. Now we vaccinate kids as they’re born. But to do everybody, to vaccinate adults of all ages, all occupations is a huge undertaking,

Jon Cohen

Especially with a priority scheme. If you just opened up the doors and said anyone can get a vaccine who wants one, it’s much easier. But when you start prioritizing health care workers. “Now okay, now we’re going to include nursing homes. Okay, now we’re going to include over 75, over 65.” It creates massive confusion here in California right now, you can get a vaccine if you are a food and agricultural worker or if you work in a grocery store. Okay, how do you prove that? Well, you know, you show up with your pay stub and do people take advantage of that system? Of course, they do. They forge documents, and the vaccine superstation where I’m a volunteer. My job last Friday night was being the first screen of people who showed up with documentation and wanted vaccine. And I had to turn away a lot of people. And it was almost comical the way people lie. And the way you know, and it was almost comical that I’m telling people, they can’t have a vaccine. I want them to have the vaccine. Who wants to turn someone away? So that’s part of the dilemmas that we’re prioritizing because we’re rationing. We’re doing a ration system. Yeah. Because of a shortage.

Ronald St. John

Yeah, absolutely.

Metta Spencer

So, it’s something about barcodes or, you know, there’s little things that you know, that they stamp on things. Apparently, they’re going to be using those and I noticed, I think today’s papers said that Canada is not set up with enough of those readers. Cell phones can do it. But the Government of Canada can’t.

Jon Cohen

Well, man, I was just speaking this morning with a researcher in India. And in India, they have very organized electronic medical record system for 1.2 billion people. And they sell smartphones for as little as $10. And basically, they’re not struggling with these issues the way we are. There are privacy concerns, certainly. And then you start to think about China and the way China uses smartphones to track people. But when it comes to public health mass campaign, this thing right here is a phenomenal tool that we haven’t figured out how to properly use and India has, and China has, and Israel has. You know, Israel has for HMOs for the entire population, it’s only 9 million people. Everyone has an electronic medical record. Every COVID-19 test you take is in your record, every vaccine dose you’ve received as in your record, every hospital visit you have for anything is in the record. If they want to figure out what’s happening with a vaccination campaign, they punch buttons on a keyboard, and they get answers. We can’t do that in the United States. We’re so fractured here that, you know, I there, there are four major hospital systems in San Diego alone, where I live. And they don’t talk to each other. And if you go from one hospital system to the other, you don’t just press a button and move your records. Oh, you file all sorts of confidentiality agreements, and you wait three weeks and you pay some money. And then maybe the records get there, and maybe they don’t, it’s a mess.

Metta Spencer

Okay, there’s one final thing I’d like to ask you to consider. And that is the question of actions that will try to stop the spread of pandemics in the future by early warning systems. And I particularly want Ron to describe the GPHIN system. Because when you were working for the Canadian government, you were in charge of this outfit, which you can, I’m going to let you describe and see whether or not… I know that the history of it has gone bad. But is there a prospect of being able to revive it or even expand on that kind of thing? Tell us about GPHIN, Ron.

Ronald St. John

Well, GPHIN stands for Global Public Health Intelligence System. And is the product of something here that we started, we created about the late 90s, when we realized that, given global mobility, infectious disease could be on our shores within 24 hours from anywhere in the world. And we needed we thought we should… we had a couple of incidents, that pushed us to develop a system that would monitor media worldwide, for outbreaks of disease. And so, we could anticipate – and that’s the key word anticipate -that we might have a problem here in Canada. So, we created this system, it was the first ever computer-based monitoring system. The World Health Organization bought in, so did CDC, and we’re still going today. But in 2019, early 2019 – and before that – the government sort of felt that, well, there’s not much happening in the world right now. So why are we spending money on this early warning system? Why shouldn’t it be diverted to other priorities? And they said, well stop issuing international alerts, because we just don’t need those. There’s nothing happening in the world. That was in May of 2019, which was about seven months before COVID came. So, our early warning system got muzzled. And it has become a big issue with now a panel of inquiry looking into what happened, why, and so forth. There are lots of reasons, it’s complex. But the… we feel strongly, I feel strongly that we need the early warning systems, not just based on media, but looking at other innovative ways of finding out things like Twitter’s and social, some people talk in on their social networks and we may be there’s a lot of noise there but sometimes there might be some important information. We need to know how to tap into that and other systems as well. To enhance our capacity to detect something that we say uh-oh we need to anticipate this might become bigger.

Metta Spencer

Well, shouldn’t this also be global in scope.

Ronald St. John

It is global, Metta. Now. It has been global for some time, and it has been linked into the WHO, the World Health Organization. And it is now part of something called Epidemic Intelligence from Other Sources. EIOS Programme at WHO and GPHIN contributes about 20% of the information. Now, there are lots of different like systems: PROMED and Health Map and you name it. I mean, there are lots now. And they’re all being they’re trying to consolidate this information in WHO with some difficulty, because the systems are not compatible and there’s a lot of noise in the systems. But GPHIN i contributing about 20% of the information that WHO has at the present time. But GPHIN has not been updated or modernized, especially with its IT in some time. So, there’s a big issue now about what to do with GPHIN and how to how to get it back on track. Here in Canada and with WHO and the rest of the world.

Jon Cohen

And upstream of that we need more aggressive surveillance of animals that potentially have pathogens that can jump into humans. There is surveillance that takes place of bats and pigs and chickens. And it is useful, but it’s not done aggressively enough. And the US had a program called predict that in a similar timeframe was defunded right before the pandemic. That was a global collaborative effort to do animal surveillance to try to look out for potential, what are called zoonotic events, the jumping from one species into us. And if we can identify, let’s say, a pig farm that has an influenza virus that has never been in humans, but could grow in human cells, we could potentially, for example, vaccinate those pigs or take some other measures to protect the workers there from becoming infected by those pigs. And that’s where we’re failing upstream, is we’re not aggressively enough doing the surveillance and acting upon what we find to prevent zoonotic events, like the one that likely is behind the pandemic we’re experiencing right now.

Ronald St. John

Yeah, I mentioned there is this movement called One Health. And the basic principle is that our health is inextricably linked to our animal’s health, and vice versa. And the fact that we’re all here on one planet. It’s all linked. And there’s there is a movement to do exactly as you say, Jon increased surveillance and… Go ahead.

Jon Cohen

I was just gonna say the One Health movement is tremendous. Several years ago, they held a meeting in Mongolia for the One Health Conference and they held it there because more humans live with animals in Mongolia, it turns out than anywhere else.

Metta Spencer

Really? Horses, they ride horses. I have pictures of them doing it. What else do they do?

Jon Cohen

Well, they have horses, cows, pigs, chickens. I mean, the way that farming and agriculturally based communities live with animals creates a lot of opportunity for viruses and other pathogens to jump around.

Metta Spencer

Yes, but they tell me that the contact is increasing. Now that I don’t understand. Because you know, yes, we are tearing, building houses in jungles and you know, tearing down habitat. So somehow that seems to be exposing people to pathogens more than even in the days when we were all farmers. I don’t know. And I don’t understand it. But that’s what they claim.

Jon Cohen

There has been a lot of opportunity for pathogens because of habitat destruction. That certainly is taking place. But the primary way … just look at influenza. What happens? Why do we have changing vaccines every year for flu? What is that about? Well, that’s about the fact that chickens and pigs get infected and other wild fowl, for example, get infected with influenza viruses that jump into us. And then they mix with viruses that are already in us and create new variants that we have to deal with. If that happens with SARS COVID-2 watch out. The variants we’ve discussed so far are variants of SARS COVID-2. If you get a mix of a new coronavirus and SARS COVID-2 we are screwed. That’s what worries me.

Ronald St. John

I’m really thankful that this coronavirus COVID-19 has not behaved like MERS coronavirus where the mortality rate is as high as 35%. That would be unthinkable.

Jon Cohen

Ron, imagine if this coronavirus hit children the way it hits adults and we had ICUs filled with dying five-year-olds. We have been so spared of that horror. And I think we have to be grateful that this virus is as wimpy as it is.

Ronald St. John

I agree 100%. As wimpy as it is, it’s a good way to put it.

Metta Spencer

Well, we’ve covered the waterfront. I think that this is very enlightening. I hope you don’t mind if I put some clips from it into Peace Magazine. I’m working on the next issue now. And I think it’s important to share as much of it as I can. So, it’s very kind of you, Jon, to be with us. And Ron, too. I see Ron more often.

Jon Cohen

Well, it’s my pleasure. I really enjoyed the conversation. Thank you. Thank you both.

Ronald St. John

Thank you, Jon. Enjoyed it very much.

Jon Cohen

Let’s stay in touch.

Ronald St. John

Take care.

Metta Spencer

Bye.

T172. Granoff vs Nuclear Weapons

Posted on March 18, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T172. Granoff vs Nuclear Weapons

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 172
Panelists: Jonathan Granoff
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 27 January 2021
Date Transcribed: 12 March 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Well, hello, I’m Metta Spencer. And today I get to get back in touch with a fellow I’ve known a little bit for a number of years, but not very well. So I get to know him a little better today. This is Jonathan Granoff, who is president or the head honcho anyway, at the Global Security Institute, which is someplace outside of… Kenwood… Pennsylvania, is that where you are… No, not for a long time. Last time I knew you were… Where are you nowadays?

Jonathan Granoff

Our offices are two blocks from the United Nations [New York City].

Metta Spencer

Oh, okay. Well, that puts you in the big league, doesn’t it? … not the sticks… or an elegant suburb of Philadelphia as I recall. Anyway, it’s good to see you, Jonathan. And, and we are going to get caught up a little bit, because first time I met you,… we were both in the backseat of a car in Pugwash, Nova Scotia… and you were on your cell phone. And you were calling US senators, as I recall, just casually… as if you just wanted to check in with these folks see how they were doing… first name basis… my jaw dropped. I thought this is this is a peacenik with power. Anyway, I think we’ve met on a few other occasions, and I don’t know that you are on the phone with senators every day of the week. But at any rate, it’s, it’s good to know that I have a friend in high places. How are you?

Jonathan Granoff

I’m fine. Thank you… privileged and living in the suburbs of New York City… my wife and I are enjoying it. We go for hikes in the woods every day. And, you know, we do these zooms. So we’re intimate with people all over the world. We live in a fairly large, large home. It’s not it’s not environmentally perfect by any stretch… But I think… how difficult the present situation must be for people living in apartment houses.

Metta Spencer

I have an apartment house and I’m perfectly happy. Well, yeah, I never go out.

Jonathan Granoff

You don’t go out… imagine if you had three children, oh, that would be hard. And then imagine if one of the people in the house had to go out and work. And when they came back, you either had to quarantine them, or you were concerned that they could spread the virus. And then imagine that you have several generations, that you have elderly people who if they get the virus, they’re terribly compromised. And then imagine you’re in… public housing, where you have elevators that are relatively slow, dysfunctional, overcrowded. And then imagine… you’re in a part of the country, a large part of the country, where people have been told by the… former president of the United States, not to wear masks, and you have to interact with them. Just to go to the grocery or get gas for your car, or anything, and and you’re afraid if you tell them, “Put a mask on,” that they might shoot you —

Metta Spencer

I can’t think —

Jonathan Granoff

I think of this every day. how privileged I am. Under these circumstances.

Metta Spencer

Well, I feel the way very privileged too and I’m very comfortable. And I’ve got… arthritis, so I’m not comfortable. But otherwise, I’ve got a young girl who does errands for me and I have food delivered. And.. have I have a rich social life because I do this every day, I talk to somebody… on the zoom about four hours a day, which is better than I used to be, you know, in terms of being in touch with people. So I feel… I’m not missing a thing. Anyway, so we have a lot to get caught up with because you are kind of a mover and shaker in the global peace movement. And I’ve run into you at other international type meetings. And I liked the fact that you titled the institute, the “Global Security Institute,” which is, you know, pretty inclusive. So, why don’t we talk about what your organization is up to and the policy options? Where are we in the start of 2021 with a new administration in the US and the possibility of renewing the START agreement… Where do we stand and what what’s our assignment for the year or the decade? How about that first quarter? Yeah. You can break off any chunk of it you want.

Jonathan Granoff

Well, first I wanted to… highlight where we met in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. We were at Cyrus Eaton’s estate, which served as a bridge-building center for scientists of the then- Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. And the Pugwash Conference Center has a legacy that most Canadians don’t know about. But if they do know about it, it’s a matter of appropriate pride. So, it’s this beautiful estate, you know, looking out on… the Atlantic Ocean. And during the height of the Cold War, scientists from the Soviet Union and the United States met there… in 1995, the Nobel Committee bestowed on those conferences a Nobel Peace Prize. And along with that, they gave a particular prize to one of the founders of the Pugwash conferences, a man named Dr. Joseph Rotblat. And the reason was that Dr. Rotblat. was on the Manhattan Project. And… when he found out that the heavy water facility in Norway, had been blown up by the Norwegian resistance and the British Secret Service operators, that the Nazis could not build an atomic bomb — and the whole premise of the Manhattan Project was to be a deterrent against the Nazis — he went to the leaders of the Manhattan Project and said, we should stop, because the raison d’etre of this project is no longer there. And their response was not explicit, but it was essentially, billions of dollars have been spent, we can’t just walk off. He said, “You build it, you’ll use it, and you build it, others will build them, and you’ll have will have a horrible arms race. And as a moral principle, you walk off,” —

Metta Spencer

You know, there’s a different angle on that story. And your, your part of it is not one I heard. I interviewed Joe Rotblat once. And the story he told me… had to do with Japan, that… General Groves told him… “This is not really for winning the war against Japan. This is for what we’re going to use it for next, which will be Russia. Because as soon as this war with Japan is over, pretty soon we’re going to be z war with Russia. And that’s what… this bomb is for.” And that’s when he decided to quit.

Jonathan Granoff

Well… they’re not contradictory. There was a slew of a slew of reasons that Grove articulated to justify continuing the project. And there’s more, there’s affirmations that were made to the US military establishment, and particularly to those who had to allocate these huge sums of money. But yes… the reason that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was as a message to Stalin who was about to invade Japan. But… let me go back to Pugwash, Canada. And so — you’re absolutely correct, that was one of the arguments… but it goes back to the reason for the project of the Manhattan Project, it begins with a letter from Albert Einstein to President Roosevelt that said the Nazis are going to get the bomb. And that… reason falls away. They start looking for other reasons. So, this was a weapon, looking for a rationale. And he considered the weapon immoral, irrational and extremely dangerous and founded the Pugwash movement named after the venue in Canada, and we were there because of another, a great Canadian leader, Senator Douglas Roche. Who… started the middle powers initiative… looked at where the world is or and was, which was between — 1. the maximalist demand of nuclear abolition now today by the majority of countries in the world which don’t have nuclear weapons — and 2. the intransigence of the nuclear weapon states, despite their legal obligation under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to negotiate elimination… that middle-power countries, countries that rely on the rule of law that have that have fairly good records on human rights Canada, an excellent record, but we were pretty flexible, because our issue was not human rights. Our issue was nuclear weapons, countries with legitimate… governments that rely on the rule of law, could and should be a bridge between the maximalist demands and the intransigents, and to come up with practical steps that the world could take to walk down the nuclear ladder, and lead toward fulfilling the legal obligation that the International Court of Justice has articulated, the legal obligation to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons, and the legal obligation contained in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. And our retreat there was essentially focused on that agenda, building that agenda, to build that bridge —

Metta Spencer

And that’s really what the whole focus was almost the whole time, then we branched out a little bit here or there. But this big focus… has always been nuclear weapons. Yeah, by the way, Doug Roche had an article just yesterday in the Globe and Mail newspaper about the new nonproliferation (TPNW), not the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (NPT)… because Canada has, of course, not endorsed it… there’s a big effort here now to get Canada to, to not only sign it, but ratify it… which is of course, problematic, from many points of view, because people want to say, “Well, we’re a member of NATO… it’s not possible for a NATO member to join the TPNW”. But there’s a very strong argument that yes, it is possible. So that’s what he was arguing for yesterday. And we have a new minister, Foreign Minister, Marc Garneau, who was an astronaut… in Global Affairs. And he is he had previously stated his support for nuclear disarmament… before he took a very significant part in the government. But at any rate, now, the question is, does he still think that way? And does he have enough clout to make it happen?

Jonathan Granoff

Canada also has an excellent ambassador to the United Nations,

Metta Spencer

Bob Rae, I’m trying to get an appointment with him, one of these days on this show…

Jonathan Granoff

A very open, thoughtful, reflective, insightful, inspiring human being, and one would expect great things from him. When the UN gets back in motion. Under the Biden administration, it’ll be a lot easier. But you know, Canada has been, you know, missing in action the last few years, it has walked away from its traditional role as a leader in global cooperation as a bridge -building nation. And, in fact, deep the Department of Foreign Affairs hosted several endeavors with the middle powers initiative. And Senator Roche and I had… no less than four meetings with Jean Chretien. Really… I brought the former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to a meeting with him… Michael Douglas, the actor… the most impressive was a meeting with the…former Prime Minister Kim Campbell. And how cordial and how professional and how… mature as people they were… I was just thinking of like their character, both of them. Chretien and Campbell, compared to most politicians… they were real people of character and… thoughtfulness. And the current prime minister, to my surprise, given his background, his lineage… his father was a great world leader. And this youth has not taken the mantle of global leadership that the world so desperately needs. And… I would reach out to him and say, you know, there is a constituency in Canada: the business community that operates at a global law-governed level, the financial community operates at a global level, the human rights community of Canada, both domestically and internationally, has a legacy and positions for which it can take pride. It still is a leader in that… globally, on the issue of science and climate. Canada has a global perspective on the issue of the pandemic — Canada’s position in approaching it as a global public vaccine, and addressing it as a global public good. Canada has a strong position to be proud of… on the issue of on international security, on the melting of the Arctic, Canada has a position to be proud of. And it has leaders such as the… Order of Canada, which has unanimously come out in favor of the abolition of nuclear weapons, national heroes like Romeo Dallaire, a strong nuclear abolitionist — and there’s a very small minority in Canada dragging their feet on this issue… on the issue of nuclear abolition, Canada is a laggard, and it has fallen behind. And I don’t believe it’s consistent with the will of the people of Canada to be a global leader in peace and security. And what it can do in NATO… is cause an ongoing review of the process. And that review must include civil society. Thus far, the NATO review process has really been a very closed process. And that would involve having hearings in the Canadian Parliament. I’ve testified before the Canadian Parliament, and I was amazed at how sophisticated the parliamentarians were, how they were prepared, and they asked demanding questions. So, there could be hearings, and organizations like the ones that you’re a part of, Metta, should be part of that process… Canada could also be convening middle-power countries in a process to build that bridge between the maximalist demands and the intransigence of the nuclear weapon states. There are many things that Canada could do right now… Another thing that Senator Roche was a leader in… Parliamentarians for Global Action. They started an initiative called the Six Nation Initiative. And at that time, you had six heads of state. Papandreou from Greece, Nyerere from Tanzania, Gandhi from India, Olaf Palme from Sweden, and the respective heads of state of Argentina and Mexico. I’m glad you can remember all those, I wouldn’t have been able to do that. And they went to Moscow and Washington and made the case that they were all subject to the hazard of the nuclear sword being over their heads. And thus, they could only fulfill their first duty as the head of their states, which is to protect their populations, if the Soviet Union and the United States started talking to each other about the issue. And I know from President Gorbachev directly telling me, this had a very, very positive effect. Well, Prime Minister Trudeau could start a similar initiative of like-minded heads of state that want to be seized of the issue and bring it to the forefront at the General Assembly debates. Every head of state should be saying, we have yet to fulfill the first resolution of the United Nations to ban weapons of mass destruction, atomic bombs. That’s the first resolution —

Metta Spencer

— everything that you said. And I my own interpretation… is that Trudeau, the present Trudeau, Prime Minister, is very concerned about staying on the good side of the US. That’s always been the main motivation… the main constraint on politicians doing things a little bolder than they’ve done. And so he was being very careful and cautious about his dealings with Trump. Now, the question is, how much more latitude will exist in the Biden years, as Biden is by no means a pacifist, he’s very much a military-minded person, I don’t know how strong he is in favor of nuclear weapons, or whether the plans for the US expansion and modernization of the nuclear arsenal will continue on the present course. But if there is to be any kind of wavering on that, it might give a little bit more room for those… and there is a very strong initiative going on here in Canada, to press the Canadian government to take a stronger position against nuclear weapons. And either to get out of NATO or… I think the opinion is sort of divided whether Canada should leave NATO, or use the power that we have within NATO to instigate some changes there. So that’s, you know, in a way, I’m gonna throw it back in your lap since I’m on this side of the border, and you’re on that the southern side of this border. And if Biden is going to be a little bit more open to changes of a nuclear policy, how are we going to find that out? When? Do you have any feelers out?

Jonathan Granoff

No need for feelers, just need to look at the policy statements that he ran on, that he’s committed to move toward a nuclear-weapons-free world —

Metta Spencer

but everybody says that it just means, you know, like, 100 years from now, maybe —

Jonathan Granoff

No, I’m sorry. That’s not what it means. No. Okay. No… and I don’t think we should frame it… we should stop framing it as we’re against nuclear weapons. I think we should frame it as we are for… fulfilling promises that have been made under solidly negotiated treaties. So we are for Law and Order in the international arena. We are for fulfilling the legal obligation to negotiate the elimination of nuclear weapons, unanimously held by the International Court of Justice, and the positive law of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty [NPT}, that Canada is a party to and the United States is, and there are practical steps that have been committed to under the nuclear non proliferation treaty that remain outstanding. and Canada can push very hard on those because they’ll have support from the Biden administration, if it’s framed as fulfilling the rule of law —

Metta Spencer

And that’s really interesting. Because I, I have to, I don’t want to disagree with you, Jonathan. But, you know, even the Green New Deal people, and Ed Markey, who’s always a most fervent anti-nuclear weapons guy for the last 50 years or whatever. He’s part he’s one of the leaders of Green New Deal, and there’s nothing in there about militarism. There’s certainly nothing there about nuclear abolition.

Jonathan Granoff

No, but he has other legislation… he has other legislation on that, he has no-first-use legislation. He has a budget… He’s been putting forward legislation to change the budget and reduce military spending all of these so you know, no, I mean, certainly Markey has been consistent.

Metta Spencer

I am sorry, I shouldn’t I shouldn’t attribute the failings of the Green New Deal just to Markey. But I’m not criticizing him. I’m creating, criticizing, if anything, the limitations of the Green New Deal, which in every other way is just terrific. But it doesn’t really talk about militarism.

Jonathan Granoff

It shouldn’t… The goal is to get it done it you know, you don’t throw in other, may be politically naive to throw in other issues. You don’t want to… throw in the right to abortion in it. Also, you don’t want to throw in a human rights issue. Although you know, … we support these issues. Okay. So it makes no sense to do that, but the same people who are conscious of the need to get off the addiction to fossil fuel, are the same parliamentarians globally who want to move to the security of a nuclear-weapons-free world. And I know this because one of the programs of the Global Security Institute is Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament. And Ed Markey is one of the co-presidents of that organization. Okay. And so we I interact with parliamentarians all around the world. And these are parliamentarians who get elected on local, mostly parochial issues, you know, that are of local concern, which are taxes and lifestyles and things, things that are not existential, frankly. But who realized that the world is one? The climate is one, there’s no passports for the climate, there’s no passports for pandemics. There’s no passports anymore for capital, for the movement of capital, there’s no passports for art, communication, transportation — although we have passports — you can fly almost anywhere, almost everywhere in the world now. not

Metta Spencer

And not easily under the pandemic.

Jonathan Granoff

No, but I’m talking about the psychology of … understanding the world, and parliamentarians who understand climate often are the same ones who understand about nukes because –.

Metta Spencer

That’s what my reason, I take your point, I think you’re probably politically correct. And saying, don’t hook these things together? Maybe. But, you know, I’m always one looking for the connections between things. And the connection between global warming, and militarism, and especially nuclear weapons. I think, you know, there is, there’s a lot to be said about showing that these two issues are interrelated. And I think in, you know, when I talk to the public, general public, that’s one of the points I try to make. So I guess I was a little disappointed that the Green New Deal doesn’t make that connection.

Jonathan Granoff

But the connection… and this is something that the Global Security Institute is partnering with the United Nations and the World Academy of Arts and Sciences, which Joseph Rotblat was one of the founders, with Einstein and Russell, I’m a fellow in that — and one of the projects that we did, it is as pretentious as it sounds, the World Academy of Arts and Sciences, I think there’s about 650 of us — and one of the projects that we have, is to change the paradigm of how security is defined from the disproportionate reliance on militarism, and the concept of national security in derogation of or minimalizing global security — precisely Metta, because of the insight that you have, that we need to see security holistically. It’s very much the way medicine 50 years ago was very atomized. If you… said, Doctor, I have a terrible upset stomach all the time, he would likely give you a pill of some kind to address the symptom of the upset stomach. But today, any good doctor will say, What are you eating? How’s your… sleeping? Are you getting exercise, etc. Because we now know that the body is a whole. Similarly, the security of the human family cannot be obtained. relying only on nationalism. So the climate requires global cooperation —

Metta Spencer

— the thing that I am engaged with this complex Project Save the World. And we have six global threats. They’re not all equally ominous, but they’re they can all… wipe out a billion people at a whack. And that is not only militarism, and global warming, which are the two biggies, but famine, pandemics, radioactive contamination, and cyber risks. And if you look at them, they’re all interconnected, you can’t do you can’t solve any one of them without doing something about one or more of the others. So it’s,

Jonathan Granoff

And that’s why we need to, we need a new intellectual paradigm called human security, where we’re focused on human security so very much in the same way as in the 17th century, when when… Christians were slaughtering each other, as to whose definition of Jesus love was was better. And a third of Central Europe was… destroyed in Protestants and Catholics slaughtering each other and they, and… since they were killing each other, in the interest of immortality of the soul, they weren’t going to stop. And there were some, you know, walks, who got together in Westphalia in 1648 —

Metta Spencer

Wonks —

Jonathan Granoff

wonks,

Metta Spencer

I hear you’re just a little surprised that they were called walks. But they weren’t called that then —

Jonathan Granoff

We now know what they were they were: policy wonks… and visionaries. And they got together and created the Treaty of Westphalia which created the modern state. But the purpose of the modern state was to stop this religious madness, not to create a new madness of nationalism. And the UN is an institution that responded to the the destruction of much of the world in the 20th century, because of… the tribalism of nationalism … we need to… be pushing for a new paradigm of security. And we need to have a global discussion about balancing science, the use of science, the two pillars of this are science, as a tool to understand the natural world — but that alone is not sufficient, we also have to affirm the universal values of our humanity. We cannot just have efficiency and science as a value, we have to have the primacy of the individual … freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, etc. So those are the two prongs and they have to be balanced. And I think this … you asked what I’m involved in, and I that this is where my thinking is now… And I think this is… the kind of thinking that has to be compelling enough to bring the best minds of our time together to come up with a balance between the efficiency that quantum computing… and biotech is going to give us: the efficiencies of manipulating populations and the fundamental freedoms that need to be protected. So —

Metta Spencer

How are you working on that? Because I think our goals are 100% compatible, if not identical in nature. But I think that the question of strategy of how to best move these move, the world… in that direction, is still open for discussion. You move to being near the UN, presumably because you think the UN is a good place to work on these issues. Is that right? Why didn’t you move to Washington DC instead?

Jonathan Granoff

Well, we did. We had an office… with retired diplomats across the street from the Senate right next to the Supreme Court, and called the Bipartisan Security Group. But in the recent years, there’s no bipartisanism, there’s been no bipartisan discussion. And we couldn’t raise any money for it anymore. So, we had to close the office. But… it would be very irresponsible to neglect the indispensable country… in the process. But… we’re, the way in which you infuse an idea into the public debate is by conferences and writing papers. So, I just published an article in Cadmus, which is the journal of the World Academy of Arts and Sciences and chaired the opening session in a two-day conference with the United Nations on “global leadership for the 21st century”. And it was very high level… it was opened by the director general of the UN… so that’s what we’re doing, right? You convene, you discuss, you identify allies, and you build… a movement for it, but… this isn’t new. This isn’t new, but what’s new is —

Metta Spencer

I think it’s not only not new, but it’s what we are in now is kind of a throwback or recession period, toward nationalism. I mean, all of this populist thinking, it has made it worse, not only, you know, the Trump period, but all these other things. Dictators who wannabe dictators around the world are certainly nationalists in their orientation… or they’re anti-globalist is what they think they are. But so I, I hope that we’re going to come out on the other side of that now, that we will be, except that the whole pandemic has created more, you know, the borders between countries are in trouble now, and much more local thinking. So, I don’t know that I’m very optimistic that we are really passing out of this period of nationalistic chauvinism into a more global way of thinking. I’d like to think that as soon as the pandemic is over, we’ll automatically see the value in interacting as a whole global community. But are you optimistic at this point in time?

Jonathan Granoff

I don’t. I don’t look at, I don’t think that way,

Metta Spencer

don’t you? Okay? No, I

Jonathan Granoff

I think like, what’s actually going on? Where can I make a difference? And I don’t look at it like… what’s the likelihood of success or anything? For me, for me, these are issues of … moral compulsion. And so I don’t use that metric. But I do… try and look and see which way the wind is blowing to figure out whether the wind’s behind us or the wind’s in front of us. When the winds in front of you, you can tack you know, you can still move the boat forward. But so the first thing that Joe Biden did is he rejoined the World Health Organization. That’s pretty clear right? Now, we’re going to rejoin the START treaty —

Metta Spencer

and the Paris Agreement

Jonathan Granoff

and the Paris Agreement. So I mean, we’re fighting for the soul, not just of America, but the soul of modernity. And modernity… has created an international cosmopolitan class that understands exactly what you and I take for granted. The reality of the picture, the icon from outer space, that the world is one mysterious, graceful sphere in infinity, where love is possible. There may… other other places, maybe there is maybe there isn’t. But we know that the highest value of love is possible here. And people understand that icon. It’s not just a marble. It’s an icon. It’s a symbol of our human unity and mystery and wonder. And the other icon of the modern age is the quest for security through the affirmation of absolute power and destruction, which is the mushroom cloud. And my grandfather would see a mushroom cloud and he would think of mushroom soup. But I see a mushroom cloud, and I think of Nagasaki, the last time these weapons were used, and the pathway of nationalism well, leads to war. That’s where it leads to. And to quote Martin Luther King on the subject: “If modern man continues to flirt unhesitatingly with war –“, he’s talking in the context of nuclear weapons, and his Nobel acceptance speech, ” — he will transform his earthly habitat into an inferno, such that even the mind of Dante could not imagine.” And that’s what’s before us. And we need to make it very clear to our political leaders, that this is how we see it, that this is not just an issue of partisanship, that this is not just an issue… of normal political discourse. But this is an issue of fundamental… sense of the blasphemy of degrading the gift of Creation itself in derogation of God’s blessing, in favor of something we’ve created… Human beings create states; we didn’t create the planet Earth, we didn’t create the climate, we didn’t create life. We created states… Why? We created them to stop our madness of religious bigotry. So we need to start redefining things based on the truth. You know, and this, this whole misidentification with… the things that separate us, rather than the reality of our common humanity is what’s at stake.

Metta Spencer

I want to let you know how much I appreciate your… idealism and the inspiration of what of the way you speak about these matters and I think we we have not only the the ideals that everybody and everybody shares and even these thugs, you know, patriots who, who are really doing so much damage, some part of them recognizes all of the things that you’ve just said. But and and so we all, at some part of our soul we share these values. And but of course, the reality is also they’re very practical, pragmatic, realistic. This worldly reasons for abolishing nuclear weapons.

Jonathan Granoff

Well, we’re… the realists… we need to we need to claim the realist debate. Because because it is not realistic to continue to be addicted to fossil fuel and think there’s a sustainable future. It’s not realistic. It’s not realistic to think you can have a vaccine- apartheid world, with… with walled states, with walled communities, with walled hearts and leaders who are that way. It’s not realistic. It’s not realistic. You know, it’s interesting that it was Ronald Reagan who pushed the Montreal Protocols to protect the ozone.

Metta Spencer

I’d forgotten. Right. And it was… Ronald Reagan, called George Schultz into his office (a right wing conservative American president, but he wasn’t, he wasn’t a fascist, he wasn’t crazy) and he said, Look, the scientists are giving me alarmist information that we could be destroying the ozone, causing massive cancers and agricultural disruption. Maybe they’re wrong, maybe they’re right, but we should have an insurance policy. And we can lead in America to get this done. Because who brought him into office was the right wing. So… America was wind in the sails of the Montreal Protocols, which Canada should be proud of. And when people say, Oh, you can’t get the cooperation, we can’t get the world to be realistic. Not true. Canada led with American support in getting the getting the protection of the ozone and reversing the destruction of the ozone layer from… hydrofluorocarbon molecules. This is the time in which, that opportunity has arisen now… Canada can push America toward a new realism in human security and global cooperation. And you have the intellectual heft… in Canada, you know, and you have the parliamentarians in Canada who understand this, and the Neanderthals who are still talking about unrealistic myths, myths, like strategic stability — that NATO … how can you have strategic stability when you’re also pursuing military advantage? It’s, you know, it’s totally schizophrenic. So, we have to say, We don’t believe you’re being honest, you’re being unrealistic. Do you want strategic stability, that means lowering the salience of the weapons? If you want military advantage, we’re going to have an arms race that will bankrupt us, and make the use of weapons more likely. Neither of these are realistic. What is realistic, is working together on those existential threats that you laid out: the climate, cyber, pandemics, poverty, you call it hunger I call it poverty, nuclear weapons, and on the horizon, nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotech and all of these new capacities that we have. This is what’s before us, either … we’re going to be in pieces, or we’re going to be in peace. And a country like Canada, … has a legacy and… the moral authority. By the way, you domestically have a country that’s truly multicultural, and a true sense of freedom. And when I hear… the scandals that you guys have, and that it upsets the Canadian people, and Ithink of what we are living through in the United States. I mean, we just had an attempted coup! — What our scandal is that the the prime minister was caught eating a chocolate bar in Parliament. He had to apologize.

Jonathan Granoff

Yes, honestly. Canada, grow up already. You know… you actually exemplify… be the leaders that you have to be… demand of your leaders that they take a global leadership role, because you’ve got the right to do it.

Metta Spencer

Well, Jonathan, you got me all fired up, I can hardly wait to finish my day, we have so many things to do. And you’re doing your part, and I want to do what I can. And thank you for this because I want to share it with my Canadian friends. And they’re going to be all fired up to. So it’s wonderful to have you as our partner, and especially to have you there at the UN where you have access to some people that we don’t necessarily have much contact with. So Bless you.

Jonathan Granoff

Oh, bless you. Thank you, Metta. And thank you for being a thought leader and a heart leader for so many years. You know, this is not something that you’ve just come to in a fashion way, this is something… that was a calling that you responded to.

Metta Spencer

It’s true, for both of us but for me, it’s also fun. I hope you’re having as much fun with it as I am.

Jonathan Granoff

But… I think that we have to get the millennials… to know that you can make a difference. We can claim some victories that — our voices… — because they bring peace. But peace is not as eyeball compelling as conflict. We’re set up to watch out for conflict. But when there’s peace, we just kind of take it for granted. It’s like our health, right? It’s like our health when you’re healthy. You don’t think about it… we should. And … we should be grateful for our health, and we should be grateful for people like you who responded thanklessly to the call for peace.

Metta Spencer

Bless you my friend. And it’s just a delight to be back in touch anytime that, next time we meet it may be in the backseat of a car going someplace in Pugwash, Nova Scotia, or it might be in Geneva I think which is the last time I met it maybe

Jonathan Granoff

Hearings in Ottawa.

Metta Spencer

And maybe hearings anonymous… Indeed, indeed. Thank you and have a great day.

T166. Rotary and IPPNW

Posted on March 18, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T166. Rotary and IPPNW

Ready to read another transcript?
Click here to return to the transcription home page

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 166
Panelists: Dr. Richard Denton
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 25 March 2021
Date Transcribed: 11 March 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer, and good morning to you and to Richard Denton. Today we’re going to talk about the Rotary Club, which I’ve heard about all my life, but my goodness, I’m impressed with him lately. And just finding out all the wonderful things that Rotarians do. And Richard Denton is a big time Rotarian. He’s also big time in a whole bunch of other things. He is the co-chair of the North American Committee of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. And he’s involved with Pugwash, very involved. And with the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace. I’ve just teased him about being the first bearded lady in the Canadian Organization of Women. Okay, and so we’re going to have a conversation about all these wonderful organizations that he’s engaged in. And he might recruit a few of you. I should say that if you’re watching this live, you can write a question in … the chat box, and my assistant Adam, who is watching… if he sees a really interesting question, he’s authorized to interrupt our conversation and on zoom, and ask Richard whatever question he has… So, you may have a chance to put a question directly to Richard Denton. Good morning, Richard. Hello. wonderful to see you.

Richard Denton

Great to see you.

Metta Spencer

And wonderful to see this wonderful background, which you tell me is not a green screen, but some wonderful, tricky thing that you can put on your computer. So, it’s a virtual background. Virtual background. Yeah. And you have all these words that mean peace, peace, freedom and “pace”… “paz”… all these different languages. Is this Rotarian? I see a gear wheel, which must be a rotary symbol, is that right?

Richard Denton

Correct. Yeah. over that way. …the rotary wheel… was actually designed by a fellow Rotarian. I like liked it, and she was kind enough to offer it to me.

Metta Spencer

Uh huh. Okay, so that gear we although it has been around a while, right, it must have been the founding symbol of the organization.

Richard Denton

Correct. Rotary is the oldest and largest service club in the world. It was founded by a lawyer, Paul Harris in 1905. And we now have 1.2 million Rotarians. And really, it’s probably…about 2 million because when you add younger people in Rotaract and Interact… and spouses, then it swells to about 2 million.

Metta Spencer

What is Rotaract?

Richard Denton

ACT is the ending of it. Correct. And it is for young people University age, and then on up. It used to end at about 30-35, and now there is no limit. And it is now functioning pretty much the same as rotary, it’s on just about equal par with rotary and will be in 2022.

Metta Spencer

What happens they have their own separate meetings or do you get together, or what’s the relationship between oldsters and youngsters?

Richard Denton

Well, obviously, we’re all working in — our motto is “service above self”. So, we work on projects, to better our community and to better our world. And often, we will work together and also can work separately… as clubs.

Metta Spencer

Okay. And is it always — my impression is that it’s quite a progressive organization. In general… anybody could call their orientation service. But is there some sort of consensus about what kind of service you want to perform in the world?

Richard Denton

Well, yes… there’s lots of service organizations… Lions, Kiwanis, etc. And our motto is “service above self”. So, as I said, service to our community and to the world. We follow what is called the four-way test. And one of my mentors has taken the four-way test … will it be beneficial to all? Will it be bringing goodwill and friendship? Will it be fair to all and then when you develop a relationship with another person, then — and you have that trust between each other, then you can get into the nitty gritty, which is the fourth question, is that the truth? And so, you can apply this to just about anything, you know, to any type of discussion, be it in your marriage, be it in your workplace, be it in world politics. And we feel that, you know, if there were more Rotarians in politics, who applied the four-way test, the world would be a much better place.

Metta Spencer

How do Rotarians get along with other service clubs? You know, like Lions and Elks, and I don’t know what all there are. But there are a number of other other I think of them back in the day. When I was in high school, I used to be invited to give talks to the Lions Club lunches. And, and I think they gave me a couple of hundred dollars for a university … for me to go away to Berkeley… I don’t know that they were all that progressive, although I didn’t try to poke them and find out. Do all of these service clubs have a lot in common or is there… do you have strong cleavages between groups of service clubs?

Richard Denton

Well, certainly I would say there’s no cleavages. I mean, we’re all helping our own communities, and to better the world. I think each club has their own niche. And so you’re here in Canada, you hear of the Kiwanis Music Festival. And they put that on. Rotary has historically been a men’s club, old gray-haired men who were at the top of their businesses and professions. And… even back in 1905, they looked for diversity so that you would not have two doctors in a club, you would just have one and you’re trying to have representatives from a variety of professions. Now, of course, what happened then was that… I’m a family physician, but you could have a surgeon, you could have a pathologist, you could have any other type of doctor in sort of subcategories. So that’s how they used to get around it

Metta Spencer

I know… The idea is to prevent a competition to doctors, trying to steal each other’s practice… was that the original…

Richard Denton

I would say, actually, no, the idea was to certainly network. So different business people would network together. And we often have sort of the joke that you’re an outstanding Rotarian. So instead of being in a conference, listening to the speaker, you’re often out in the hallway out standing in the hallway and talking with colleagues about other business pursuits. So, it was very much an organization along those historical lines. Now, as you say, yes, we are a very progressive organization. And now we allow anybody … in who still holds our values, our core values, and who has the time and the energy to put into service projects. And so that… the core value of the of the organization… is to work, helping others in a variety of ways.

Metta Spencer

Well, I can tell anybody without even asking that your core value is peace and that your work … within Rotary must also represent your work for peace, right? So, tell us about the kind of… you have a committee of peace committee or something, don’t you? Well,

Richard Denton

In Rotary, there are what we call six areas of focus, which are health, water and sanitation [mothers and children, education, local economies]… of which peace is also one. And then being a progressive organization, we have just added the environment as the seventh area of focus. So, we’re now looking at climate change and how to address that. But the major project that Rotary has been involved in, of course, is “polio plus”, and we have raised a billion dollars to immunize, vaccinate the world, and the Bill Gates and Melinda Gates Foundation has matched that with another billion. And so, we have almost eliminated polio, plus several other illnesses in the world… such that now only Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only countries in the world that actually have live polio cases.

Metta Spencer

Uh huh. Yeah, I was hearing about that a few years ago. And then was it after that, that there was a real problem? I think that was in Pakistan, that the US government sent out really spies…, disguised as vaccinator promoters, and this turned the public against them… I’m sure I’m not telling this right.

Richard Denton

Well, yes, that’s the story. The American government had people going around, pretending to be vaccinators, and they were then able to locate Osama bin Laden by that technique, and found out his location… through that. And then of course, as a result, now, people have a great distrust for vaccinators in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And so that has done a great disservice to our organization and to what we are trying to do, and to the cause of ending polio. Oh, yeah, sure.

Metta Spencer

Well, is there a possibility? Or have you considered, has Rotary considered mobilizing people to go out and administer COVID vaccines? Looks like now they’re gearing up, at least in the US. And I’m sure that other countries as well, I don’t know, I haven’t seen that much for about Canada. But to take over stadiums… how people go to the stadiums in, you know, that kind of numbers, to get their stuff jammed in their arm. Could ordinary people… could I for example, if I were able and interested, volunteer to… give these vaccinations or would… it really requires medical personnel to do it?

Richard Denton

Good question. Metta. Certainly, Rotary is using expertise in vaccinations, and because of our experience with polio, and we have the word “polio plus”, meaning that we also vaccinate for other diseases, the measles, mumps, rubella, those sorts of things. And so, we are now doing just as you say, using that expertise to vaccinate against COVID-19.

Metta Spencer

So, I presume there’s no real trick to… I’ve myself done it. I was an office nurse for a few years, and I’ve injected people occasionally. But I think that the rationale was that you need to have a medical person around in case there was… somebody with a reaction, an immediate serious reaction. But I know they give vaccinations at my local pharmacy. I don’t know I don’t think they do COVID. But they do some kind of vaccinations. So, to what extent is that going to…? I know we’re veering off topic, but I am curious about whether or not that is going to have to be a limiting factor, making it necessary to have medical people nearby, in case somebody has an adverse reaction?

Richard Denton

Well, certainly that… is the case. Now with polio. It came in the two forms. The Sabin and the Salk. One was an injection and therefore, yes, you did need to have medical personnel. The other was given as a drop on the sugar cube, or just a drop in the baby’s mouth, child’s mouth. And so, as an oral, it was much safer to give, it didn’t require the refrigeration so much. And… any “volunteer” basically could give that… you’re right, when you’re injecting a needle, though… there is the risk of anaphylaxis reaction, which the patient can have, what one might call the Darth Vader syndrome, where they lose their ability to breathe, their throat will swell… and they can die. And so, you need to have medical personnel who are trained in resuscitation and could administer the drugs immediately to prevent that.

Metta Spencer

Some kind of epinephrine or something like that, is that what… the correct…?

Richard Denton

Yes, adrenaline. Epinephrine is the first drug, and then steroids and then antihistamines.

Metta Spencer

So maybe if we have a whole stadium full of people, there might be a couple of people around just in case, who could —

Richard Denton

need that

Metta Spencer

Okay, well, there we go straight from talking about the Rotary to

Richard Denton

Well, that’s all part of “polio plus”, which is Rotary’s big project.

Metta Spencer

Uh huh. Well, good, wonderful. I didn’t actually didn’t know any of that. So but I know that you have this Rotary peace organization, which must be some sort of club within the club. Is that the general idea? Tell us about that.

Richard Denton

Well, we are individual Rotarians that are concerned about the risks of nuclear weapons. And I think, as we have seen this past week, down in the United States, with the storming of the Capitol buildings, things can go wrong. And we have the president, who has… sole authority to push the button… and there’s his conversations there, to put it mildly, with the leader of North Korea. They were joking —

Metta Spencer

Rocket Man.

Richard Denton

They weren’t joking, unfortunately. But they were talking about who had the biggest button and whether it would work or not. And we’ve got nine countries in the world who now have nuclear weapons. And so, it is based on having a rational person who is in control. And this may not be the case. I mean, one can look at presidents of the United States, John F. Kennedy, was in pain and on narcotics, which can affect your mental abilities. Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s in his latest stages. You got Brezhnev who may have been intoxicated at times. So those are some areas where you worry… you obviously need safeguards. So they’re, the military is instructed, of course not to do anything that is illegal, but at the same time, they need to follow the orders of their commander-in-chief… who is the president. So that is a concern. The other concern is certainly the risk of accidents and miscalculations. We’ve seen several movies: Command and Control, we’ve seen The Man who Saved the World, about a Russian who thought that Russia was being attacked by nuclear weapons. But did not launch a counter attack until he had visual proof or radar proof.

Metta Spencer

I think he didn’t believe it. That’s the thing. He was supposed to believe it because this was supposed to be the rock-solid evidence, but in fact, he knew damn well it wasn’t. And then he used good sense… Stanislav Petrov.

Richard Denton

Yeah. But there’s been numerous other examples. during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we now know that the Americans found a Russian sub, they didn’t realize that it was nuclear-armed, they started throwing depth charges at it. The Russians on board said, “Hey, World War 3 has broken out, we need to launch our missiles.” Two of them said yes. And a third said no. And so he was also a Russian man who saved the world. Absolutely.

Metta Spencer

Well, we’re all in the business of saving the world. And this is Project Save the World that we’re on. And you do as much as anybody I know. In those regards, I have to really, really admire your commitment. I don’t know anybody who’s got more zeal for the kind of work that you do.

Richard Denton

Oh, you’re my mentor. You’re the one who’s done this project on how to save the world and come up with your six… possible risks to the world?

Metta Spencer

Well, they’re actually fairly similar to the things that the Rotarians had already identified. Although I must say, not many people were thinking about pandemics when we formed Project Save the World. And we said a pandemic is up there, right with some of the worst ones, as a threat to humankind. And I guess we’ve been vindicated — for what it’s worth, if anybody wants to feel proud of having anticipated COVID. I guess Bill Gates is probably the main one who anticipated that and saw how dangerous the situation was. And, you know, if you compare what we’ve been going through to some of the previous pandemics, it’s hard to say this, but we kind of got off easy, because … there have been pandemics that have wiped out even a larger proportion of the human population. So… really what we need is a movement, a social movement…, there is no social movement — like a peace movement, or hunger campaigns for food in the world, or some of these other social movements. There isn’t anything for the general public, to work on, preventing pandemics, it seems to me that the people working against pandemics are all professional, public health experts or epidemiologists or people in… paid to do medical work. So, I think we need to… build up our awareness in the general public of the importance of… the transmission of viruses and things from animals to people, and maybe from people to animals. I don’t know, that that kind of One Health approach could stand… some help. Maybe we can get Rotary to… take part in that kind of orientation.

Richard Denton

Right? Well, I mean, first of all, you are my mentor, asked me how To Save the World looked at six risks. And I think what the pandemic has shown is that all of these risks are global problems. They transcend borders, and countries around the world have not prepared for these catastrophes. So, I think what we need to do is have a new mindset, a new way of thinking, to stop spending money on the military, and to spend it on treating the six areas of your focus, which are as you say, also the six — and now seven — areas of focus for Rotary… health and infections and sanitation and water, and all of these then go together to create peace. You know, what we’re finding now is that… you can’t vaccinate in Pakistan and Afghanistan, if you don’t have peace, if you don’t have trust, if you cannot build up relationships with people. And so, peace is… fundamental. And one of the things that Rotary is involved in now is the Institute for Economics and Peace, that has come out with the… the eight pillars of positive peace, we often we think of peace as a negative thing, the absence of violence, the absence of fear of violence. But this Australian, Steve Killelea, founded this institute, and came up with a Global Peace Index, a way of measuring peace, and he looks at things like a well-functioning government, equitable distribution of resources, a free flow of information instead of the fake news… the propaganda that we have now… having good relationships with our neighbors… working cooperatively together, multilaterally, multi nations together, and I think this is where the United Nations could play a much larger role. If it… gets better funded. You could look at human levels, our levels of human capital, you know, it would be much more important to fund… scientists…working on your six problems, as opposed to modernizing nuclear weapons at a cost of a trillion plus dollars, over the next 20-30 years. You know, there’s the acceptance of human rights… we’ve certainly seen this in the past year with, you know, Black Lives Matter. And here in Canada, we have systemic racism with our indigenous people… low levels of corruption is another area… in the military, you know, if a hammer costs $3, but if you put military on it, it suddenly jumps to $20 or more for the same hammer… and then of course, sound business environment. So, all of these things are all interrelated. And, you know, I think, as you say, Metta… back in the, during the Cold War, we had a social movement against nuclear weapons. Now that Greta Thunberg and our young people are Interactors — high school people are now addressing the climate crisis down in the States, they’re addressing gun violence… all of these are interrelated. And what we need to do is to show that and… desertification of land which will dry up, people will then be forced into starvation, you’ll have famine, which is one of your areas of focus again, people will then move — become refugees. We then… give arms and weapons. And… then that creates more refugees if they try to flee the violence. And then Canada then looks to taking in the refugees… and I think this is the problem, it’s that we often don’t look at the root of problems. And we’ve just tried to address them superficially saying, okay, we’ll take in the refugees, as opposed to saying, Okay, why did this happen in the first place? It’s the climate, and it’s us selling arms —

Metta Spencer

I think the thing is, people often say… we just can only do so much. So, let’s pick one of these things and work on it. The truth is, I think that if you work on them all together, it gets easier because they’re so connected and connected to everything else, you know. You can’t really solve any one of them without doing something on some of the others. So, just the example you gave of this chain of event of disasters, one leading to the other We have to think of it that way. And, and if we address it as a package then… oh boy, it’s wonderful to be on the same team. As you know what we’ve only talked about Rotary, we haven’t even given you time yet to talk about IPPNW… you are the co- chair, the North American co-chair of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which is a Nobel Peace Prize winner from way back and did a huge amount during the Cold War, to really change policies, especially I think, in Russia, maybe in the US to some extent, but tell. Let’s talk a little bit about that before we wind this up.

Richard Denton

Well, I think maybe… we should end on a hopeful note. At this week, on Friday, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons comes into effect. And this will make nuclear weapons illegal. We’ve known that they’ve always been immoral, illogical, and insane. And now they are illegal as well. And yes, IPPNW was founded equally by a Russian and an American cardiologist, who both looked after their own leaders, and were able to influence their leaders and bring them together, and eventually to end the Cold War. And for that, we got the international… the Nobel Peace Prize in 85. Now, we formed the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN, which got the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017.

Metta Spencer

And it was largely supported by IPPNW —

Richard Denton

And now it’s brought… all these various peace organizations around the world, and they pushed the countries to form the UN nuclear ban treaty in 2017. So, the NGOs, the non- government organizations, like the International Red Cross, and Red Crescent societies, and all these other peace organizations came together and pushed the states, the various states to actually come up with this new treaty. And so, this is definitely a positive note. I think, IPPNW is working again, it’s a international organization, and it is working on a number of fronts in the United States, one of our members, Dr. Ira Helfand, has come up with Back from the Brink, which has our five steps: not to be spending the vast sums of money on nuclear weapons… no-first-use, to remove the president from having the sole authority to launch an attack, etc. And so, I think, you know, we’re looking at Don’t Bank on the Bomb, which is a program to divest money from nuclear weapons and their delivery systems and put that into the climate crisis. And to address pandemics and to all the other global problems that need global answers through a strengthened United Nations.

Metta Spencer

Well, within about 24 hours, we’re going to have a new president of the United States, who will make all of those things a little bit easier anyway. I don’t think he’s a red-hot disarmament person yet, but maybe we can push things in that direction. Anyway, you know, what we need to talk about IPPNW further. So later on, I’m going to get you and somebody else or maybe a couple of other people from IPPNW together for a whole conversation… we’ve given our attention so far to Rotary, which absolutely deserves it. And now we’ll move on to some other group one of these days. So, All right, thank you so much, Richard. This has been extremely enjoyable and informative because you’ve told me some things I didn’t know and I bet you a lot of other people don’t know either. So yeah. Share this with other people if you have any opportunity to do so, and maybe we’ll get some new Rotarians in the world knows

Richard Denton

that that’s our what we’re looking forward to do is to increase our membership throughout the world. Definitely. Terrific.

Metta Spencer

Thank you so much. Have a great day.

Richard Denton

Thank you. Bye-bye.

T180. Peace Workers in Georgia

Posted on March 17, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T180. Peace Workers in Georgia

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 180
Panelists: Irakli Kakabadze, Julie Christensen, and Shorena Lortkipanitze
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 5 February 2021
Date Transcribed: 16 February 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. Today we’re going to go to Tbilisi, Georgia, which I’ve never been visited, but people tell me that Georgia is just paradise, a beautiful place, especially Russians like to go there. So, I want to meet some friends. My old friend Irakli Kakabadze is in Tbilisi, Georgia in a studio someplace. And he has two friends. He’s just introduced me to Julie Christensen, whom he met in the United States when they were both I think students at George Mason University. Is that right?

Irakli Kakabadze

You were my mentor

Julie Christensen

I was a professor already. I

Metta Spencer

We got that straightened out… be sure we know the pecking order around here, who knows what. Right? Absolutely. And their friend Shorena Lortkipanitze – Irakli Kakabadze, Julie Christensen, Shorena Lortkipanitze…close enough? No, I’m not really very practiced with Georgian dialect and names. But I know they always have two or three different endings. And like you everybody in Georgia has either an -itze or a -badze… Alright, anyway, we will not explore names here. But we will know that I’ve already had a little bit of a conversation with Shorena, who is a peace worker. So, all of these folks are, you might say professional peace workers. And there is no more holy … mission in this world, then to be a peace worker, in my opinion. So hello, everybody, it’s nice to meet you. Well, let’s sort of pretend that I am the guest and Irakli is the host, because you have some topics that you would like for us to cover. And, and therefore, I think you should be in charge of deciding what you want us to talk about. And I’ll do my best. Okay, exactly. What would you like for this conversation to be all about today? Yes,

Irakli Kakabadze

there are a number of very interesting topics for war and peace times — from Georgia, and in Georgia, and to Georgia — because right now, war and peace times are around the world. And yesterday was very interesting speech by President Joe Biden, who made a number of points about US foreign policy. And of course, the whole Caucasus and whole world was looking towards this speech. And BBC was having it in live and lots of other stations, and it’s broadcast everywhere. And he talked a bit about Russia. And he talked about spreading the power of democracy, which the whole world is waiting. And he said, America is back, which is a very interesting statement. And in South Caucasus, we do have a need of America being back — because lots of Georgians, lots of Armenians and maybe Azerbaijanis and maybe other ethnicities in South Caucasus feel that America needs to be back in the Caucasus because it has been absent for four years during the Trump administration. And during that time, we already had a number of incidents and last one happened in the last months of the Trump administration when the Karabakh conflict took place and Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan took leadership in that conflict, even though the formal fight was between Azerbaijan and Armenia. But Mr. Putin and Mr. Erdogan proclaimed both of them that they kind of peacefully solve the conflict, which is unfortunately not true. And lots of people have died in this very, very horrible conflict. And right now, we have a new division by which Georgia is kind of surrounded by neighboring empires. And it’s almost 100 years since the Kars treaty between Soviet Russia (basically Soviet republics of Caucasus), but it was Russia and Turkey. It was done in September and October of 1921, which basically divided Caucasus in two halves between Turkish Empire and Russian Empire. Now, lots of people are afraid there’s going to be a new division between Turkey and Russia which seem to be in alliance against the West. And because of that lots of people, lots of ordinary people are very concerned that Georgia is going to be facing another number of occupations — since we do have number of territories that are occupied already, but with the pronouncement of Mr. Erdogan several months ago in Baku, which made that… six-nations Caucasus union, he proclaimed that Russia and Turkey will… lead a new alliance with Russia to Iran, and then three South Caucasian republics… Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, which lots of people didn’t like. And that initiative by Mr. Erdogan, who is… not very well known… as a democrat, as much as his friend, Mr. Putin. They’ve made some interesting and very, very unusual, I would say, first time in… history, maybe with few exceptions… like Lenin and Ataturk in 1921, that Turkey and Russia made a deal, how to divide South Caucasus, and now America is back after being absent for four years.

Metta Spencer

Wait a minute now. They, Russia and Turkey have made a deal of how to divide the South Caucasus. That’s a big statement. I never, I don’t think that made any public statement. But how do you think they have agreed to divide the South Caucasus? That is a remark, remarkable claim? Do they acknowledge that as surely, they haven’t admitted that that’s what they’re going to do?

Irakli Kakabadze

No, the pronouncement here this year was — last year actually — was by Mr. Erdogan that he’s created, Russia and Turkey, are creating a six-nation Union of the Caucasus, of which the members are Turkey, Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and if Armenia desires they could join… that was the pronouncement… and it is easy to check this, how they divided the Caucasus in 1921 in the famous Kars treaty, that a number of Georgian provinces went to Turkey, number of Georgian provinces went to Russia… Saingilo province went to Azerbaijan, and there were some other Georgian provinces that were divided between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. So it’s the new division — which set up the whole Karabakh situation and all other things — happened in the city of Kars in 1921, and on 100th anniversary, it could be revised, according to that treaty. So Mr. Erdogan was basically saying that now Caucasus would revise this treaty and those big countries who were always deciding the fate of small nations (like Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan) would make a new deal, to make a new beginning… make a new day.

Metta Spencer

I would like to hear Shorena and Julie, react to what you said, because I heard you say something similar last time, we had a talk show, but I didn’t, I kind of let it fly past me. Because I think what you’re saying is such an extraordinary assertion, if it’s clear that this is true, and why don’t — I mean, it’s, it’s an epoch-making development, and everybody in the world should be talking about it. But I haven’t heard anybody else say it. And I wonder how much other people would agree with your assumption, and I’m assuming that it’s really just your guess, that they made some sort of deal. Because, you know, we would hear about it. Shorena and Julie, please, what do you think of what he’s just said? Do you agree with him?

Julie Christensen

I’m going to go you know, I’m, I’m the American here. I’m going to listen to Shorena first, then I will respond.

Shorena Lortkipanitze

So, I would differently — I mean, this is one of the assumptions. But I would… not say that… there is deal or there is conspiracy or they have divided and —

Irakli Kakabadze

Announcement of six nations.

Shorena Lortkipanitze

Yes, yes, absolutely. But I would To draw attention and focus more on the situation, now in the Caucasus. So, remarkable thing happens. You know, in the Caucasus we were, I was growing up and when I was student, lecturing, and we we used to have this frozen conflict here in the Caucasus — and even thinking about that, what should be the kind of resolution or how it will develop? I mean, it was so difficult to think… how this frozen conflict would melt. So, what will happen? How… would it happen? It would be military, it would be peaceful, how? I mean, what are in the minds of big states, active in the region regarding that? So, and actually, every time as especially Azerbaijani-Armenian tension grew up… I was thinking that… they will stop, because — yes, is it beneficial for countries? how long this tension will last? All these violent conflicts, and what happened last year, from 27th of September until 10th of November… the period of war. I mean, that was something again, with this deal, and with this, changing the status in the region itself, the status quo. This is something very, very remarkable. It gives a lot of —

Irakli Kakabadze

All these people dying, “remarkable”?

Shorena Lortkipanitze

At lot of people died… from both sides, and lots of civilians, and new IDPs, different emotions and attitudes towards the developments in the region, and frustration for peace workers, because we couldn’t do anything. I mean, not me, but also me as a part of that process… it happened because last year, this time, we were organizing a peace march with… the Gandhi Foundation, and we were so excited about Armenia meeting peace-marchers and these people, and then we were waiting for them in Georgia. We wanted somehow to connect this peace march with Azerbaijan, and then this war… pandemic and then war. I mean, this is something we would have to, I mean, how, what does the we have to ask questions: are wars still… are these conflicts still won by wars? I mean, is military still so much important in international relations in, in, in today’s world — if you have big army… For me, this is the question first of all…, to understand because if we see the forces’ military balance in the region, in… among South Caucasus countries, Azerbaijan has the biggest army, better equipment, technology, and Turkey… supporting and backing — and then Armenia also quite big military power, Georgia very small. And what we see is… that if you have big military and you have good technologies, and you have drones, you can win wars? And then what? I mean, this is something what’s really very frustrating.

Metta Spencer

Let me ask broaden the question a little bit, because you talked about the frozen conflict in the Caucasus. I of course, the first thing I would be thinking… was Armenia and Azerbaijan, but there are other frozen conflicts, you know, the South Ossetia and all these parts of Georgia that are in question, you know, what, what’s the status and

Irakli Kakabadze

occupied by Russians.

Metta Spencer

Yeah. Okay. You’re looking for a new solution that presumably would reduce the frozen conflict solve, settle the frozen conflict in all of those places, but not, not one big move. There’s no one initiative, is there, to try to reorganize who’s in control of what territory in the Caucasus? I mean, what I think Irakli is suggesting is that there’s a plan underway to Make a grand…rejigging of the Caucasus, you know, the map, in the Caucasus… between Russia and Turkey.

Julie Christensen

So I’d like to jump in here as somebody who has worked on the Soviet Union and Russia for a long time. So, I would say this that, you know, it has always been clear that there were two empires, the Russian Empire, and the Ottomans. And the question was… where was the boundary between the Russians and the Ottomans? And that’s, I think, what were we thinking about a little bit here… because these are the big powers. And then we have the smaller powers in the middle. And… for somebody who’s worked on the Soviet Union, or Russia, I mean, I worked on Russia for a long time, I do think that: Russia has in mind and has always had in mind the fact that the Russian Empire, it’s just like, you know, Ivan the Terrible or whatever, you know, he said, all the rivers in Russia, you know, he will take the Russian Empire, to the end where all the Russian rivers flow into the ocean. You know, the Russians have always wanted to take the Russian Empire to the Ottomans. They stop there. The Russians stop, when the Turks begin. That has been historically, the boundary between those two powers, historically, for a very long time. So, what is really curious here is we have Erdogan suggesting that it’s going to be like, this little friendly little neighbourhood in which it’s going to be Turkey, Russia, Iran —

Irakli Kakabadze

IK Exactly, yeah.

Julie Christensen

— and Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan clearly may be okay with that. Armenia has a lot of friends. And I just feel like Georgia is going to be feeling a little bit worried. Because it’s going to, it’s going to put… it’s throwing Georgia back into, into Russia, as you know, another “Orthodox” (give me a break!) country. I mean, this, this worries me a lot, too. As as an American who’s very far away, it’s not my problem. I’m a Scandinavian, you know — but I would like the Scandinavians right here right now. And I think this is a serious problem.

Metta Spencer

I know I’d like to Norwegians here right now. No, I —

Irakli Kakabadze

On the next show —

Julie Christensen

Know, I’m very worried about this too. Maybe. On the other hand, I love what Shorena was saying at our last meeting, which was that Turkey nevertheless is a member of NATO, right? And maybe we could cut this a different way. Maybe we could do a different… cookie cutter thing. Maybe it doesn’t have to be, you know, the Russian Empire verse versus the Ottomans. But and, you know, and then I have to say that I was just listening to you Metta… we have a lot of problems that are global. Here, that are like a higher-level problem… no matter where we are, and I think, you know, this is like on a lower-level problem. And I know there this is this new book I haven’t read recently by some woman who wrote this is, is it an inevitable that we have to be at war all the time — are wars, you know, just in our nature? and so, I’m sort of sitting here in Tbilisi in quarantine forever. Ugh! And, you know, just wondering how it’s gonna play out with the Ottomans, the Russians, these two empires, and, you know, NATO and, you know, and where we’re going globally. So that’s where we are.

Metta Spencer

If you wanted it, let’s say you’re trying to think of an alternative to having two big empires, again, bumper to bumper. Then the third option… would be to figure out how the EU would be related to that. And I don’t see that much connection. I don’t even see that much interest in the EU in trying to establish a foothold or something in the Caucasus. I mean, it would be nice if we could say yes — certainly I don’t think you can count on Biden. I don’t think the US has any — you know, they’re not in the game —

Irakli Kakabadze

Can I make some explanation here because I think when I made this speech about the Kars Treaty, which is a historic fact — basically, Russia and Turkey have divided the caucuses in a new way? I mean, before that, you know, the towns of Artvin and Kars and all these places belonged to Russian Empire. And then they belong to independent republics of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, lots of the territories — and then they were taken, and kind of divided by the Soviet empire and Ottomans… Ataturk… but to Empire, but the whole thing is there right now. Why do people desire Americans here, why people desire Europeans, also president Macron’s… involvement?

Metta Spencer

I’m not hearing too well. Back up. Why something Americans there? Would you say?

Irakli Kakabadze

Why people desire America? And why people desire French? why people desire British? they’re not talking about NATO.

Metta Spencer

Why… Georgians want relationship, with the US with was the French with the Britain. Right?… if they don’t want Putin or Erdogan, what else have you got?

Irakli Kakabadze

They see — the lots of Georgians have lots of historical memories from those two empires, which are very painful, and are in lots of ways are afraid of those two empires conquering Georgia again, which is very close to reality… that union of six starts to function. Throughout Georgian history of 25 centuries, barely what we will say that with the newest history of Georgia, today has been conquered number of times by Ottoman Empire as well as by Persians. But then, of course, last 200 years were under the Russian Empire. So, it’s very understandable that people not just Georgians but other peoples in the Caucasus too have those fears. Different types of fears, see that Russia and Turkey are together to make a new order. And they already made it because Russian troops are right now in Karabakh and South Azerbaijan. Turkish troops were there on the parade in Baku and northern Azerbaijan. There’s a long history of the involvement of these empires in the Caucasus, and right now to defend a democratic state and democratic civilization, the democratic system, or let’s say, a liberal democratic system — right now, lots of people feel that connection. And basically, a partnership treaty. A partnership treaty with the United States of America and European Union will be the only solution to save the sovereignty of those small countries, especially in Georgia.

Metta Spencer

Well, it sounds reasonable. I would, I would say that if most Russia and Turkey have reached any kind of agreement, then indeed, the only option that you might have is hope that —

Irakli Kakabadze

There is no agreement yet. I’m sorry to interrupt, but there is no agreement yet. But the pronouncement was made very clearly by Mr. Erdogan. And he knows how to do it. And Mr. Putin agreed. So, this is very concerning.

Metta Spencer

Okay, then the name of the game is how to get Europe interested. I don’t think that the US is going to be at all engaged there. I don’t see how you could expect the US to help much at all. But Europe maybe, France maybe.

Julie Christensen

Yeah…

Irakli Kakabadze

The United States has military bases right now, from Turkey to Greece. Some military bases there. There’s a talk about this. And, of course, the Georgian civil hope that President Biden he mentioned the situation around Russia. And he’s, I understand, (of course, that that could be a not very good sign for some peace builders with Russia), but … he is much more principled with the Russian imperialists in lots of ways. So, he said the infringing on… sovereignty of the independent nations of Georgia and Ukraine is unacceptable for the United States. And I would add, this is true because… certain territories in Georgia are occupied by Russian forces as well as certain territories in Ukraine. And in this situation, sovereignty is absolutely breached by the Russian forces. And right now, the union of Russia, Turkey, Iran and three other nations, small nations who won’t have any power over them. This is very, very — and we need to look for some ways to do it without armed intervention, of course, I’m not advocating an intervention, I’m advocating a peaceful solution to this problem, but it’s a very dangerous precedent.

Metta Spencer

Okay.

Julie Christensen

Can I add something about, you know, please, um, but I want to say something about the United States and what they’ve done in terms of supporting Georgia and supporting this region. One of the things I was most impressed by was the United States has put their third most important hospitals for wounded veterans in the entire planet, here in Tbilisi. So, there are three places: Walter Reed out of DC, somewhere in Germany… and the third is in Tbilisi, and the army, the United States Army has put them here. And another thing is, I have a lot of my students who are here doing this, I am so proud of them. But anyway, they are working on this and Tbilisi has the best equipment because it’s German. So, Tbilisi, and for prosthetics and things here, they’re here in Tbilisi, and they’re in Germany, and less in Walter Reed. But the thing is, of course, we don’t want this. I mean, this is not a desired outcome is to be — giving wounded warriors who’ve been blown up in various wars here, you know, prosthetics — but I think that they This is a sign that the United States trust the Georgians… in this region, and that is what’s so concerning here. It is so concerning here, because the United States if they’re far away, it seems like I do think I mean, I agree with Irakli, I think the United States is the best support for Georgia in a certain sense, because I think they respect the Georgians the most, although, maybe the French, the Germans, you know, maybe — I am not undermining the Europeans. But you know, the Armenians have a lot of support the Azeris have their own support. And so, we’re thinking a lot about the Georgians here. And I… I hear that concern, and I don’t know, and Shorena’s a political scientist, which I’m not I, you know, I’m, I’m really a specialist in film culture. So, I’m speaking, but I’m speaking also from the, you know, perspective of the United States and a lot of my students for many years.

Shorena Lortkipanitze

Yeah. A few comments about this six-country dialogue, right, in a partnership in the region, it’s very asymmetric I mean, of course, there is danger of — three big powerful countries, and three small, less powerful countries. And for Georgia, of course, this is very dangerous union, because you have this Russia… occupy… Georgian territory and the struggle continues, and — of course, without US participation, EU participation, that should not be happen… because we would be in a very, very weak position in that discussion… As for public discourse… if we see all these polling, sociological researches and poll links, US is [the] number one partner for Georgia, strategic partner and this is perception among public… for NATO integration and EU integration. It’s also very interesting because it’s permanent for the last few years: 80% for EU integration. Georgian population supports EU integration and partnership and friendship, let’s say with the EU, and 75% of Georgian population… support NATO membership. So and in all these pollings, Russia is always some kind of enemy it’s perceived as an enemy and occupier… it’s around 20% thinking that it’s still possible to do something to be friends with Russia. So, I mean, this is already a very good indicator of where we are … so what works for us for Georgians, we are far from US, we are far from even Europe, because even Ukraine is closer with Europe. So, we are too far. And geography still matters. And we are here like in a small part of the land between two seas, and between three big powers, let’s say because Iran is also here with… its historic, let’s say, aspirations in the region. So, it was not only Turkey, of course, it was also Iran.

Metta Spencer

When talking about that, about the Iranian aspirations, is it really that Iran wants in on this deal, or was he just fantasizing? Or were, you know, Erdogan and Putin just trying to be as inclusive as possible? How important is Iran’s influence? And how much interest is there in Georgia? In, in being in such a thing? I mean, the idea of organizing a six-nation thing, there’s nothing inherently saying that that couldn’t be in-, you know, a democratic and pretty independent region. I don’t think it’s likely but it could be, but with Iran in the deal, I don’t know. Yeah. How do people feel about Iran there? And, and about the idea of being somehow a partner with Iran?

Shorena Lortkipanitze

Yeah, it’s very interesting. Iran was and is under sanctions. And of course, Georgia is also part of that regime. So economic relations, trade relations were quite restricted for last years because of the sanctions. And Georgia was very strict. But there were some — yeah, so this, the sanctions component in this relation is very important, because it didn’t, it does not give countries opportunity to cooperate, to trade to exchange. So that’s why this decade of this process, somehow affected very much on the economy. There is not much discussions about Iran at all. But what is what’s interesting, there was quite a big inflow of Iranians in Georgia, in 2013, and 2015, because we have very light restrictions on this entrance and permissions and so on. And a lot of Iranians were coming in Georgia, some of them were settling here, and trying to get some more permanent or some temporary… longer permits. And, and you see, in even before … pandemics, but I am speaking about beginning of second decade of 21st century, it was fair, people were coming here to have this freedom, to enjoy some kind of freedom. And even Iranian singers and musicians were coming from Europe or US, Canada and having some performances here for those coming here from Iran. So, this is that was very common. So, for Iranian people let’s say certain… travelling, Georgia was perceived as a kind of paradise of freedom, and so on and so on. And but after these restrictions, again were into force… and now, of course, pandemics. We have less people now, people from Iran, but still some businesses operate. We have Iranian Chamber of Commerce here are three, four years ago, they were certain — I was kind of writing about debts, and that’s why I’m quite informed — trade, a conference, and the Iranian minister or Deputy Minister… of trade and commerce, and all these Iranian businesses and Georgia’s. But I don’t think that it’s it went into kind of some intensive relations, but there were some attempts. And I think this was Iranian government’s attempts, somehow… the lightening of the sanctions regime and have this connection with Georgia. For many Iranians, Georgia was seen as a kind of transit country to Europe, because they were coming here to go to Europe, to US, from here. So, I mean, this is the land of opportunity… for Iranian people, and of course, in these bilateral relations, there were some attempts — but Georgians, we’re with America, I mean, all Georgian policies towards Iran. And these bilateral relations, they were very much driven by Georgian/US relations, and what is negotiated… when Julie was telling us about that Americans trust Georgians, or they like Georgians, let’s say this is because we try to adhere to the bilateral rules… what we what Georgia and US… have agreed. So, I think that this is — to tell the truth… there is no any essential discussions, Iran is not –. Yes, there are discussions about Turkey, and [t]hat’s interesting. But government have always tried to be very, very nice to Turkey, never to.. bring anything on the public discussion to surface, because we know that there were some trade-related, not very good conditions for Georgia in these bilateral trade agreements, and Georgia wanted to negotiate them or still wants, but this this is never taken… for… public discussions, and what’s interesting for Georgia/Turkey relations, before elections, one of the political parties they wanted to, they even had this big poster in Adjara Autonomous Republic, indicating that not only Russia is the enemy, but Turkey’s also enemy. And actually, there was a very, very strong public kind of protest against that, that poster, and it was very, it was kind of election, pre-election campaign, part of campaign, but it didn’t work. And this party also didn’t get as many votes as they got during previous elections in 2016. So, I mean, it’s because, yeah, I mean, this is generally how it looks like, what’s interesting. What I see as a problem is Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the relations between these countries, the level of partnership between these countries on bilateral level… trilateral… does not work because of Azerbaijan.

Metta Spencer

I’m sorry, you’re referring to — you make it sound as if there’s some positive relationship among Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Really.

Shorena Lortkipanitze

There was, of course,

Metta Spencer

was during the Soviet

Irakli Kakabadze

Soviet Union, of course there was.

Julie Christensen

I mean, that may sound like Pollyanna. But, but that did happen. You know, and we talk about that, in terms of the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, that now, there is no sympathy between Azeris and… Armenians — where even in the previous war which was the Armenians… nevertheless, under the Soviet state, there was a sense of, you know, commonality. And, you know, and I, that sounds, maybe I’m being naive to say that, but that it was, there was there was a sense of the Caucasus under the Soviets, and that’s not here now… It’s falling apart. And part of it has to do probably with the external things which we’re talking about, which is Turkey, Russia, and everybody, you know, breaking it up. So, we have a big problem here. I mean, I also think that Iran might be interesting for here, but we also have a problem of the church, which is that the Georgian Orthodox Church… will put up with Iran. But… they won’t, and, and it’s so… tragic.

Metta Spencer

So true. Look, what is your best option, if you had this whole situation solved? What would it look like? What kind of game plan do you have in mind and or maybe you have two or three different things you’re considering? But what would you like to have come out of all of this?

Irakli Kakabadze

Metta, can I add one thing to what was described as our coexistence, because this is a very important matter, for understanding the future, how the how the future will be. So we remember times of peace and we remember it very well in 1960s 70s, or 80s. And until 1988, we… had a peaceful time where there were almost no borders between Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. So, in the Caucasus, you need some sort of a lingua franca, as they say, today, for the peaceful coexistence of three old cultures and a number of really, really old civilizations, what, to what really worked during the Soviet Union was that Russian served as a lingua franca until our national liberation movement, and I did participate myself in that movement and Russian Empire right now is seen as an enemy, as, by majority of people. I’m not happy about that. But that’s the fact. But the problem is right now, if we don’t have a lingua franca, we need one language, Metta, we need a lingua franca to interact with each other. Because our cultures are very different, very distinct, and very old, and lingua franca, which was Russian earlier, but it cannot be Russian anymore. We need a new actually lingo franca, and all the people —

Metta Spencer

What would you like?

Irakli Kakabadze

You would like we would like to get I mean, Scandinavian will be great, as Julie has suggested.

Metta Spencer

Everybody should learn Swedish is that the solution live? Icelandic.

Irakli Kakabadze

But right now, lots of people in Georgia see United States as the strategic partner, and Georgia has contributed to the wars that the United States had in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have contributed with the soldiers and everything. And now lots of Georgians feel that we need guarantees of our security from our closest partners, basically, by peaceful means. We are not meaning that by any kind of military interaction and intervention, [but] by peaceful means. This is the United States of America, Great Britain, and maybe France. Maybe Germany, too.

Metta Spencer

I don’t think you’re gonna get it. I don’t think I’m sure. I don’t think I you know; I don’t even know whether I want it to happen. I don’t like it. I mean, but the US is not going to guarantee the national security of Georgia.

Irakli Kakabadze

But how does it go on to the national security of Afghanistan or Iraq? or Syria or in lots of other countries?

Metta Spencer

Look what happened when they did! Do you want that? No,

Irakli Kakabadze

I don’t, I don’t want Russians. I mean, the alternative to American forces is these six unions six nation union and majority of Georgian are against it. They don’t accept the Empires, the Russian and Ottoman and Iranian… it’s totally unacceptable for Georgia, to be slaves to the Russians, or Turkish or Iranians.

Metta Spencer

— if you —

Irakli Kakabadze

will never accept a life, Georgia, like that.

Metta Spencer

If you, it’s nice of you, it’s very flattering. That you’re pleading with me to give you American support for national, Georgian

Julie Christensen

from a Canadian . Are you kidding?

Metta Spencer

Yes, I promise you we Canadians will protect you. Yeah. Yes, Canada.

Julie Christensen

Us Canada. But, you know, Dr. Ronald Suny (Chicago University), you know, back in the old days, and I don’t really like I think Ronald Suny — had, you know, was really unfair with this history. But, but, you know, his idea was, nevertheless we should have regional elections. And I think that would help because there are so many layers here you know, and when I was talking to our friends, Susan Allen (George Mason University) and stuff and she was saying, you know, not everybody hear me with all these nationalities and all these people, but I want to say one thing, that when I was in you know in Virginia, and some of the Georgians who were there, were saying, they said, you know, Americans, Americans or Europeans spend millions of dollars to protect some sort of rare species of birds or something like that, but you have ancient cultures around the world who are close to extinction. And this is what we’re talking about here. And these are really deep, you know, cultural, historical things. And it’s so worth preserving them, it is so worth preserving them. On the other hand, it’s not worth, you know, blowing up the damn planet. on these issues, you know, if we’re going to just like destroy ourselves in our planet, then who gives a flying -, say, you know, my Californian, you know, who cares? Who cares, you know, this, let it all — but if we care at all, these are ancient cultures. And it’s not just the Georgians, you know, I think that there’s others. And they are, I mean, they are so rich in culture, and in deep historical value. That, you know, the United States is like a baby, but a very big baby, and a strong baby, and Canada. And so, what are we going to do? I mean, how are we going to deal with this? And how are we going to try to survive as a, as a planet? And as a world, and at the same time preserve some of these? Absolutely, you know, wonderful things? And then why do we have to fight about it? I mean, why can’t we respect what is valuable in these old cultures?

Irakli Kakabadze

I think the world order should be about respecting small nations’ rights to exist and not to be conquered by the big empires. And that I think, could be Joe Biden’s one of the main achievements. And I really hope that he will do that, because he started like this.

Metta Spencer

Here’s where I would join you Irakli? I absolutely think that if you want to solve the problem, we’re, we’re coming at it from the wrong end. It sounds like we’re talking about how to make deals among various nation states, and try to come up with something that’s reasonable for, for the freedom and wellbeing of people in all these countries. And there, and I don’t see that happening, even with the US — leadership in the US can no longer impose its will on other countries very much. And that Biden’s not going to be able to recover that I think the angle, the approach to all of these things has to be at a global level, I think the United Nations should have some sort of new initiative to rethink some of the general rules about relations between states and the rights of – guarantee, have a guarantee from the level of the whole world providing some sort of international peace service or something like that which would come in and an offer assistance, and support in in times of crisis or conflict, and in defend human rights wherever they are, and defend civil liberties, wherever they are. And approaching it as a global thing is, I think, the only way we’re going to solve all these multiple problems. Because if you’re looking for one country, the US to defend you against another country, Russia, or even against Turkey. And if you’re looking for even the EU, EU to do that, I don’t think any of them are going to work. But a bigger solution is sometimes easier than trying a whole bunch of piecemeal.

Irakli Kakabadze

What about Metta, my question…? what about Woodrow Wilson’s great vision? great vision for 14 points of peace, where the weak should be defended and the strong should be fair, and there I agree with you, should be done throughout the through the United Nations organization. That’s absolutely the point. The point is that the small nations should not be slaughtered and genocide should not be made of the small nations because the bigger Empires are stronger. And we have number of genocides that happened in this area. And all these people have suffered because they’re small, just because they’re small. And now, the United Nation, United Nations needs to get stronger. And I would like to ask you this. Once we do this — we’ve never heard of United Nations, and the United States and France and Great Britain and other security council members contribute to this anti-imperialist stance, which establishes the right for small nations to exist, and not national Darwinism.

Metta Spencer

Okay, we could go off on a whole different program here, where we talk about national sovereignty, and Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination, etc., which I think is the only thing that he did wrong. I mean, maybe he did other things wrong, but that was a blooper. I think the whole notion of self-determination for nations, and the emphasis on protecting nations, is exactly what has led us into this rabbit hole. So, I don’t want to get into that right now. Because I think we need a whole different conversation about that. But I’m looking at transnational guarantees that the world protects the rights of any, any people who are being threatened, or her rights are being deprived. And that would have to be a global effort. But we’d have to stop thinking in terms of the importance of guaranteeing nations. I know, frankly… nationalism is the worst enemy.

Julie Christensen

But you know, so there’s a question of their nationalism on one hand, and there’s also cultural history on the other. And what we need to do we need to do is, perhaps it isn’t a nation, doesn’t have to be a nation, but we have to somehow protect that part, which is the history of, you know, culture, and humanity that has come and maybe it’s been associated with nations. But, and maybe we could sort of decouple that and say, let’s, you know, so there’s also this great value of human intelligence and culture. And we can’t lose that either, as we survive. So how do we combine those two, and they don’t have to be by nation, even language, you know, we don’t want to lose all these languages of the world of humanity. We don’t want to you know, do we really want to all speak one language? I mean, maybe we’d be happier. But, I mean, there are so gorgeous — I mean, it’s like, it’s like nature, nature is not like one animal.

Metta Spencer

I think, you know, it’s a beautiful question. And obviously, we have less than one minute to answer it. I didn’t think we’re gonna answer it today. But I think we have an agenda already established right there for another conversation; don’t you think? Exactly, no, and it is. So

Julie Christensen

it’s such an important con- you know, it’s that it’s very, very important.

Metta Spencer

Right? Well, we’ve had a good start for what I think is a very important discussion.

Irakli Kakabadze

Thank you and I’ll go for it. Next discussion.

Metta Spencer

Thank you all. It’s been fun.

T158. Democracy and War

Posted on March 13, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T158. Democracy and War

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 158
Panelists: Marc Eliot Stein
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 11 January 2021
Date Transcribed: 11 March 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. Do you think we can solve the problem of war? Do you think we can abolish war? Well, I’ve been working on it a while. And we’re going to talk to somebody today who’s also working on that. He’s working in an outfit called World Beyond War. And this is Mark Eliot Stein. Hi, Mark. How are you?

Marc Eliot Stein

Great… thanks for inviting me here.

Metta Spencer

Well, we’re both of us peace workers, or in casual terms, peaceniks. And you’re in New York, I think, and I’m in Toronto, and we met a couple of years ago, or maybe three at a conference that… our board put on here in Toronto… your organization’s the most effective peace working outfit I have seen. You’re really good at it.

Marc Eliot Stein

Well, we’d all be thrilled. Well, it’s —

Metta Spencer

And I really respect the extraordinary organizational capacity. And I don’t exactly know what your role in it is. But I think that you handle a lot of communications things for the organization, right. So I think we need to eventually get to talking about our mutual concerns about trying to bring peace to the world. But really, I don’t think we can start the day as if nothing had happened yesterday. Because yesterday was the day when Biden was certified as the next president of the US. And I was busy on zoom with other things until quite late in the evening, when I first discovered that there had been that there’d been a domestic terrorist attack against the US Congress. And so in a way, I’m just getting caught up on that news. But I was shocked beyond belief. Maybe we should start off by talking about what has to be a threat to human security and peace. Globally — when we have… what even nice people would call a madman in…. power, and with control over… nuclear weapons… from the US, as well as all the other military units. I think we are talking about: How the hell did people get ourselves into a predicament like that? Where we are… the world … human civilization could be put to an end? … he could he could push a button… And that would be the end of civilization. And human beings have set it up to be that way. I think that’s something we ought to give a little thought to. What do you think?

Marc Eliot Stein

Oh, for sure. Yes, it is… quite a morning to be talking to you. I’d like to… reference what you said about World Beyond War. That’s very nice to hear that you think highly of this organization. And there are several peace organizations… one thing that I really like about the peace movement is none of us are competitive with each other, we’re all on the same team. And you know, World Beyond War has many affiliates, and many partners. But it’s nice to… hear you say that you think we’re doing great. We are… growing at a fast rate; the organization was founded in 2014. I think… But you know, we’re not an old organization. And we’re growing at a great rate. And I just want to say first about the Trump ordeal, the Trumpist ordeal is that I feel lucky that I joined World Beyond War. Only about three years ago, I joined by going to a conference just like the one where you and I, Metta, you and I met in Toronto, where I think you are now — that was a wonderful conference, September 2018. That was my one-year anniversary, in September 2017. I just walked into their conference, didn’t know anybody there in Washington, DC. And said, I want to get involved. I want to help. And luckily, I’m a web developer. So to answer your question, what I do is I’m a web developer. That’s what I do for a living — I am the technology director for World Beyond War. I’m very gratified to have spent the Trump years not just bemoaning how horrible everything is, but… working on what I think is the most important activist cause in the world, which is ending war. And I certainly consider Trump to be the prototypical warmonger. The idea that he’s antiwar, I consider it laughable. He started a war in Iran. He’s escalated the war in Venezuela. He’s created a new war on our Mexican border, and he’s created a civil war right here in the USA. So… I am very agitated about what we saw yesterday, I did watch, you know, I work from home as a software developer, so that means I… have my TV on way too much. So, I watched all of it. You know, you said you tuned in later, maybe I’d be feeling better today, if I tuned in later. But it was just absolutely shocking to see. You know, the first thing that I’m appalled by is that the DC police who beat heads when it’s BLM, when it’s Black Lives Matter, who react to black people protesting with tear gas and sticks… just get these white supremacists into the Capitol. It’s shocking everybody I know.

Metta Spencer

I heard some of the pundits, late night people saying that they suspected that there was some sort of inside support for it, because apparently there were police officers or somebody in charge, opening the barricades allowing in and… I saw one guy… taking a selfie with this officer, as if, you know, they’re buddies, you know, and that this kind of cooperation occurred rather than a proper defense of the Capitol? I don’t know. I don’t know enough about it. Did you see enough to give you the idea that maybe they’re… I read even this morning that that this event had been planned… by the Proud Boys or something for months? Maybe other groups as well? I don’t know. But… this had been planned. It couldn’t have been a complete surprise. In fact, Trump himself… somebody asked him a while back, do you commit to a peaceful transfer of power? And he said, Well, all depends. So, this is a pretty good indication that he had intentions to support something of this kind. So, I don’t know what can be done. What do you think, given the first one?

Marc Eliot Stein

Oh, I agree with what you said there. I also saw the video of the DC police simply letting … the rioters enter the Capitol… building, you know, I’m not talking about the capital city, the Capitol building, let letting them actually end. I also saw what you saw, the picture of a cop taking a selfie… with one of these people. And… you said this was this was planned by Proud Boys. I believe this was planned by the Trump administration, because… I lived in DC, I lived in Virginia for a while I know DC very well. And… at 12 o’clock in the Ellipse, which is just across the park, a direct path from the Capitol … it was completely known… they were certifying the electoral results. It was a very key event in the capital. So, they interrupted the certifying of the election [in the joint session of Congress]. And, you know, basically, when the Trump event ended, it was simply a matter of walking across the Mall. The Mall is this long rectangular park in Washington DC, walking from one side of the park to the end of the park, which is the capital. So, it was it was very… the risk that there would be a riot at the Capitol was completely known to everybody, and yet there was no preparation.

Metta Spencer

Okay, so would Trump himself have been… orchestrating it? I mean, that is saying more than I had, I know that everything indicated that he was encouraging it, but to actually have been engaged in, you know, creating a space for them to meet in and… then giving the order that the police should let them in. Was there is there any reason to believe that there was an actual directive supporting this? I mean, I think maybe we don’t know yet. But have you heard anybody say that… could have been the case?

Marc Eliot Stein

I don’t think — electoral results, the whole context here is, is that Trump is is going to lose office and be subject to criminal prosecution. And he’s doing everything he can to, you know, to subvert the transition of power. So, the key event was that there was this certification going on in a joint session of Congress, which is very rare, when the Senate and the House are both gathered together. This is what was happening. Trump planned an event very close to this at the Ellipse in the park. So yes, I don’t think there was a directive. I think there was a setup… by putting this big event so close to the Capitol, it was clearly being… orchestrated, that there would be some kind of riot. I do not think … anybody anticipated that the DC police would let the rioters right into the Capitol. I don’t think anybody could have expected that. That was inexplicable. But you know, I also, I’m, I don’t want to focus just on yesterday, because I want to get back to the question, you’re asking what can be done — I mean, I have been seeing that Trump ordeal… through the lens of fascism. That’s how I view this. And I also understand, Metta, you are… a sociologist and a peace scientist, and you may have your own framework for understanding what’s going on. Many — you know, some people think Trump is… just a dumb, dumb, racist? I don’t think so.

Metta Spencer

I think he is a genius at what he does —

Marc Eliot Stein

— a large white supremacist. But, you know, I think… the way we interpret what happened yesterday probably has to do with how we interpret the last four years and maybe the last 200 years. So, there’s so much to say, I don’t even know where to begin.

Metta Spencer

You know, here’s my dilemma. And not so much a personal dilemma, because, in fact, I don’t know, and I have no contact with any Trump supporters at all. Living in Canada, and especially living in isolation, I don’t go out much because of COVID. I don’t have any reason to meet people except my own network anyway. So, I literally do not know a single human being who supports Trump, and it’s completely unfathomable to me. So, my speculation is… in a way all hypothetical. But I do have a sense of what it’s about that I think differs from the typical analysis. And that is, and one of the reasons I’m pretty confident of my judgment on this, although it was [not] my predisposition to believe this because I’m kind of an anti-Marxist… Marxists are very, very oriented… toward class analysis, explanation of things in terms of social class-struggle. And so maybe that’s my bent, but what the exit polls for the November election indicate to me is that and I spent some time looking at them. The usual demographics that you would expect to explain these variations in voting results have very little effect, if almost negligible, that is particularly education and income, which are the big drivers of, of social class and social activities, mostly. And it turns out that income is not related to support for vote for Trump, according to the exit polls, except when you get to above $100,000 a year. For people who earn that much… They are the ones who support Trump. So, it’s not… the usual explanation is that it’s poor disadvantaged people who’ve been shut out of the labor market by globalization and they live in the rust belt, or they live in Appalachia or… they’re underprivileged, and… it is poor people supporting Trump. Well, no, it’s not. The people who supported Trump, if anything, had a higher income, slightly higher on average, but the real break, the noticeable difference occurs only among people who are quite prosperous, and they are more likely to support Trump than poor people.

Marc Eliot Stein

Okay.

Metta Spencer

On the other hand, you’d say that education, mostly it’s a matter of under-educated people, believing Fox News or something. And I don’t think that either, because it looks like education in the exit polls didn’t make much difference, except among people with postgraduate education, master’s or professional degrees, that kind of thing. And those people were much more pro-Biden. So, you see professional people, who presumably would be the people with good incomes, but it’s they go in opposite directions — income, if anything richer people vote for… Trump, but education, if anything, uneducated people vote for Trump, and those two just cut, you know, where do you find uneducated millionaires? Well… not even really education that… varies particularly, it’s only among the most, what they call elite, you know, people with professional expertise, training, that kind of thing that you see any variation by education, so I think it’s not social class. Now, what is it then? Well, the results that I have seen from people who actually spend time with these ruffians, these neo-Nazis and so on, are saying that it’s primarily a sense of the… feeling that their dignity is being compromised, that they should… have a higher social status than all these immigrants, and… Muslims and all these people… so it’s a competition… for status as opposed to money. And… therefore, what is the solution? Well, the solution — if it really is a matter of feeling offended, because you’re… not given proper deference and proper politeness and, and prestige, and so on, the answer would be, just go give them more prestige, be nicer to them, show that you really appreciate them? Well, that’s what Trump did yesterday. He said, “We love you” to these guys. Yeah. And that’s interesting, because I don’t love them. And I can’t disguise the fact that I have real contempt for these people. So, in a sense, yes, it’s elites looking down on them. And yet… it’s not. What can you do about it? How can you pretend otherwise? I mean, can you try to make up to these people by going and saying, you know, come to dinner at my house, I think you’re such a good company, I want to invite you over. You see what I mean? Well,

Marc Eliot Stein

yeah, I have so much to say… First, I want to say that I… do know many, many Trump supporters. And there are several reasons. One is that I am into social media. As you know, I I’ve been very involved with World Beyond War’s social media, and I also do my own social media. And I do consider that social media is a serious place for discussion of these topics. So, I interact with Trump supporters, not jerks… not … ruffians. I do. I do want to turn that around. I hope… us peace activists are ruffians sometimes in the good sense, but… I believe that all people are good. I am very much a believer in that everybody is good, but when we are stupid or when we are ignorant, we make mistakes and when we are poorly led, we make mistakes. So and by the way… right before talking to you, I’d been talking to a friend of mine in Indiana, Columbus, Indiana… because he told me he voted for Trump. And I’ve been… berating him for it and trying to ask him, how does it feel?… because I know this, this friend of mine, and maybe he’s even watching, he knows, because I was just arguing with him. You know, he voted for Trump. And I said, do you feel ashamed? Now that you see what’s happening … in the Capitol? Do you feel ashamed? And what — By the way, what I find for many of these… types of people, is that they are dealing with what’s going on right now by shutting it out. This… particular friend of mine… doesn’t watch the news anymore… shutting it out, simply being in denial… of how odious and murderous and evil your government is — is a way of dealing with it. I want to say —

Metta Spencer

during about yesterday, what was his answer when you asked him, Do you feel ashamed?

Well, this was very funny. His answer was he didn’t know it happened. Do you know that there are a lot of people who only watch Fox News or who only listen to —

Marc Eliot Stein

…Fox…

Well, they have a very, very different way of presenting this stuff. So even — and this particular friend, I believe, doesn’t watch televised news at all. But he is… basically on a no-news diet. And I believe the answer is because “he can’t handle the truth” to quote Jack Nicholson, you know, some people who, a lot of people who… are on the Trump team have gone into a no-news diet, because it’s the only way to… handle the guilt. You know, the fact that they’ve… cast their lot with white supremacists, fascists, that they are on the Nazi side… because… I live in Brooklyn, New York now, but I grew up in Suffolk County, Long Island, which is only 30 miles from here, but very red, very Republican… It’s a sort of Irish-Italian working-class neighborhood. I’m Jewish myself, but you know, growing up there has led me to have many other friends who are Trump supporters. And… the county, I’m from Suffolk County, voted for Trump, and what people don’t know about New York is that we have a lot we have a lot of red as well as blue districts here. So, I do believe that the reason we are in this disaster is… that the news sources that they are watching are polluted by… corporate fascist propaganda. I’m talking about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh Oh, by the way, so you know, some people don’t even know that like the influence of the Rush Limbaugh type talk-radio, Mark Levin, etc. is vast… these voices are very influential.

Metta Spencer

I haven’t even heard them; I don’t think I would watch. I never heard Mark Levin. Have you listened? Well, at some point? And I don’t know, what is it? How can you characterize what —

Marc Eliot Stein:

I consider it my goal to talk to Trumpers. And as an anti-war activist, I consider it my goal to talk to people who believe that war is a positive force in the world, which is unfortunately more people than… you and I… there are more people who think that war helps the world, which I think you and I both know is just such a sad, sad misconception. But I again, I believe people are poorly led… it’s the leadership and it’s the community. It’s the media. So, when, you know, I want to sort of tie it back to what you were talking about class and education. I don’t I don’t think the voters are the problem. The voters in America are not the problem… our media… feeds us to two contradictory narratives: the MSNBC narrative and the Fox News narrative… basically choose one and hate the other… And I think you and I probably are way to the left of MSNBC. So, it’s very sad for people like us that we don’t we don’t even have a channel —

Metta Spencer

Well, yes, but that, that’s, that’s where I get in trouble. Because my friends say, or people who really, you know, there’s kind of the notion that if they’re people who are hurting because they’re lost, they’ve lost status and they feel under-recognized and under-appreciated in status, then the thing to do is reach out and talk more. I admire people with that point of view, Van Jones on CNN has that point of view, he really is extremely good at talking to people he disagrees with. Okay, I am not, because I really think when they’re telling a lie, I’m gonna call it a lie. I can’t help that. And I… yesterday, I did a talk show with a dear friend who said, I use the word “backward”. And she said, don’t use that word. I guess the logic is, if you use more respectful terminology, you don’t call people backward that’re insulting you, what do you call them? I don’t know. I call them backward. And that’s, you know, that’s the problem. How can I lie enough? To pretend that I respect people that I simply don’t?

Marc Eliot Stein

Great question. I mean, my answer is to dive in and engage with them. You know, I told you the story of my friend in Columbus, Indiana, but I would say I have about 5-6 of these running conversations. And by engaging with them, I think I understand what… So that is my answer. But I also —

Metta Spencer

If you think you understand them, do you really have respect for their point of view? I mean, do you really think they are right, in any sense of the word?

Marc Eliot Stein

Oh, great question. First, I, I would have to say, when I’m engaging with them, I’m working on them. I’m working on each of them. So, I do have respect for the fact that they are willing to talk to me, because anybody who’s… a Trumper, or a white supremacist, who… doesn’t want to examine their deepest beliefs isn’t going to… spend their time talking to me. So now, you know, with that said — I have to point to… the most important word here, which is tribalism. So… a person who’s in the deep South, their heritage is… the heritage of the of the deep south. And, and by the way, another thing I believe, now I know you’re in Canada… I do believe that heritage of the Civil War… is still with us today. And so, if you’re, if your tribal feelings are that Black Lives Matter is evil, and therefore the cops who are busting heads at Black Lives Matter riots must be good — if that’s your tribal… sort of configuration, then you are doomed to have that as a starting point. And the best you can do is, is build up from there. So, I’m thinking about cultural legacies. I mean, you and I are both people, but we come from families that that taught us — I feel lucky that I was born into a progressive… open-minded multicultural family… I feel lucky that I have many different ethnic groups in my family, and that I meet many different types of people in in my world, but people who have more limited exposure and maybe don’t have as much diversity in their lives, I think they default to white, (I’m talking about Americans here) default to white supremacist tribalism, which is what Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are pouring into their heads. And no, I don’t want to overemphasize the importance of media. You know, it’s not like I think, I think media, pushing the white supremacist narrative is the only problem. But if I had to… pick out the single cause of Trump, I would say… Fox News and talk-radio, the single — that’s my opinion, maybe, ah, you but you and I know how powerful it is. I know how influential it is…

Metta Spencer

We believe in freedom of speech, where you and I are both democrats in the lower-case sense of the word… so one of the important things I believe in is is free speech. And if that’s the case, we are giving a blessing to people who want to say lies, who want to distort reality and so on. So I know what do you do about that? I find it a real dilemma. I can’t actually… because as I say, I don’t meet any of these people. If I did, I would … have a difficult time pretending to be respectful. Let’s say that.

Marc Eliot Stein

Well, what if what if we map this back to the fact that you and I are both peace activists? Because the fact is, neither the Republican or the Democratic Party in the United States is aligned with what I believe, and I’m guessing not fully aligned with what you believe? Because the United States has problems that go beyond, you know, what we’re dealing with? So, I feel that… the big answer, and this is why I’m a peace activist, the big answer is to fix our most fundamental problems. And that involves dealing with America’s immoral foreign policy, and our fossil-fuel abuse and our corrupt capitalism. And… the crimes of Wall Street which go unpunished year after year… and trickledown —

Metta Spencer

Are those the things that you talk to when about when you talk to your Trump-loving friends? Do you talk about

Marc Eliot Stein

Yes…

Metta Spencer

and, and foreign policy and militarism and so on? And how far do you get with that? I mean, you know, to be honest, there was a time when, when Hillary and Trump were debating, and… I thought, I’m just not going to vote, because I can’t vote for either. Well, I didn’t, thank goodness, I I realized that not voting for her was in effect voting for him… and because I thought about what he would do to the Supreme Court, etc. And then, but I didn’t really feel that it was going to be any move toward peace, either way. Because, you know, the Democrats are just as tough on that as anybody, I guess.

Marc Eliot Stein

Well… can we can we take a step back and think more idealistically about the fact that if we were to manage to end war, and I know… that’s a far cry from where we are, that maybe by resolving… the root causes of the misery in our society, and the guilt in our society and the trauma and the… fear? You know, how much fear is caused by… fear of foreigners, fear of invasion, fear of war… we know how many billions of dollars we spend on weapons, that’s how afraid we are — if we can address the root causes? You know, I… actually believe… that the human race is, is changing at a fast rate. And, you know, I know some peace activists are like, oh, back off this… cosmic stuff. But… sometimes I can sound like Marianne Williamson, who I actually think is quite brilliant. I don’t know if you know her, who she is –.

Metta Spencer

I know… I don’t really know her work much. But I know, she’s kind of… pie in the sky sort.

Marc Eliot Stein

But, I come from a pie-in-the-sky background too you know, I studied philosophy in college, and my intro to peace activism didn’t come from being on the streets, it came from reading books, you know, so… I actually think it is our project, to fix our biggest problems and our biggest problems are war… racism, violence, greed, and to not… shrink away from fixing our big problems. And then the types of people Van Jones, they’re talking about… not living these lives of fear and trauma and self-hatred. I mean, it’s my belief that war generates trauma and fear that echoes and reverberates in our life. I certainly wouldn’t disagree with you… only by solving our most fundamental problems, can we have better politicians and better governments!

Metta Spencer

… I certainly agree with you, but I would have a little bit of different angle on it because I think… war is not the only threat to humankind and human survival. And we’ve got global warming, as you know, we have the possibility of famine, we have pandemics… we have cyber risks. Everything from… Chernobyl… to having your government offices hacked and all of your secret plans revealed. And, and our electric grid may be blown up if they want to. So there’s everything… all of those things. And I see them as something that we can handle best, not separately, but all together as a system, because I think they’re all interdependent causally. And probably the linchpin of the whole thing is militarism. Because it isn’t just the fear that people have as a result of war or the anticipation of war, but also the effects of investing in and maintaining a … huge arsenal of weapons and arms, armed forces, and all of that, that… misdirects, our funds and our energies away from the solutions that we need to give… into really bad, bad.

Marc Eliot Stein

well, I would also add the more practical fear of the many people who are part of the military-industrial complex of losing their livelihoods. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex is a big, big part of our economy. And that’s no small fear. So sadly, by putting weapons manufacturing at the core of our economy, as we have, along with fossil-fuel abuse, we make it the fact that solving our biggest problem would actually be economically disadvantageous. So… the gun to our head is the military-industrial complex — and work… Eisenhower said it, you know, we’re gonna destroy ourselves with war profiteering and look at the damage we do overseas… I do recognize the privilege I have of sitting here in a comfortable apartment in Brooklyn, when my country is waging war in Yemen… and supporting… Netanyahu in Gaza… the various things we’ve done in Latin America, that we’re still doing in Venezuela… this is, again, why I feel like we have a chance to fix this. You know… I’m not an antiwar activist, just for the sake of doing it, I believe we’re going to end war, we have to end war, either we end war or we die, you know, or our planet disappears.

Metta Spencer

Well, yes. And —

Marc Eliot Stein

Go ahead. I just wonder how you react to something like that?

Metta Spencer

Oh, absolutely. I think we’re on the same page completely. The only thing that I’m now focusing more on is the notion that just telling people to stop investing in military, if –it’s not enough, because… not only investors would lose profits (and… I believe in telling them… take your money and put it someplace else) but also the jobs would be lost. And, you know, here in Canada, we are funding… an industry that’s producing armored personnel carrier vehicles on a big scale for sale to Saudi Arabia. And the government has not wanted to stop doing that, although the public sees this as a shameful thing to do. But the government continues, because they will have a huge number of jobs… suddenly lost if they stopped it. So I think that as peace workers, we have to not only say stop doing this, but rather show where we should put the energies and jobs… building, green infrastructure building, and don’t use the word green, because that turns people off sometimes, but at building, creating job… that are good… that we need to have solutions to, that would be contributing a real good answers to things, Say, Stop this, but also create this, and we have to be doing the research on what needs to be done and how to actually take the same people who are working in this particular area, who are going to lose their job and say, “Now, when we shut this down, we’re building a plant that’s going to do this instead. “And you’re all going to be hired and here’s what your jobs are going to be, that kind of closeness of showing the linkage needs to be done more, I think then we’ve been doing it.

Marc Eliot Stein

Well, there’s a, there’s a three-word phrase for that: Green New Deal. And I’m very much behind it… I’m concerned that you said the word green is… I use the word green a lot —

Metta Spencer

… find everything, but I’m, belong to everything. But at the same time, if what you’re saying is, we got to be able to speak with Trumpists and right-wing people in a way that they can hear, then there’s the dilemma. If you use the word green, that’s the end of it, they don’t want to hear it. But if you use jobs, or you know, health care, or education, or improving their highways and bridges, so they’re safe, etc., then they may be able to hear it. But there’s certain words like green, that may, in fact, be counterproductive for… I can’t talk to these people. You say you do? Well, I don’t talk to them.

Marc Eliot Stein

Well, you know, maybe some of them will listen to… your podcasts and your videos… and hear you, even though you don’t — because I want you to talk to them. But I want to say that when I talk to them, I do a lot of the talking… I feel sorry for some of my friends because… I don’t… take a take a tentative stand on these issues. If somebody says they think the environmental movement is wrong about anything, they will have to listen to me explain why they are stupid. And you know, when I say I talk to Trumpers, I don’t coddle them. I talk… reality to them. And… I do think that the environmental movement, the green movement is a winner right now. We are we are winning with that one. And we need to lead with that. In fact, one of the one of the goals of the peace movement, I think right now is to better explain how the military is the biggest offender in the world of environmental —

Metta Spencer

Well, except that, as I understand, if I look at the green New Deal documents, they don’t talk about militarism. That’s the one thing that they actually don’t mention that. Yeah, take money out of the military and put it here.

Marc Eliot Stein

Yes, no, I know… I also sometimes have to argue with people who might consider themselves… further on the spectrum, from… conventional politics than me because some people don’t even like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and the Squad. And you know, what I consider to be… and Bernie Sanders, you know, our only good politicians, in my opinion, these are our only good politicians. But even these politicians — simply because they are officeholders, and they are in the Democratic Party — they’re certainly not mainstream in the Democratic Party. But you know, many people… who are progressive will reject even Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. So, the word “green” will cause problems on both sides, but we just have to keep persisting… I don’t take it from them… they will hear me explain why they’re wrong.

Metta Spencer

You know, I deal with it. But go back to my original dilemma. If you’re going to explain to them why they’re wrong… does that work? I mean, arguing with people, I don’t think often works. I’ve rarely seen anybody say, “Oh, yes, you’ve just convinced me that I’ve been wrong all my life.”

Marc Eliot Stein

Yeah, I know what you mean. You know, maybe you can the question between us here is, do we solve the problem of fascism or Trumpism by addressing the voters or by addressing… the ringleaders? And I actually, again, I think the voters are… I don’t think the voters are the problem. I think the problem is the crap that we that we shovel out to voters, you know, give them give them these choices. You know,

Metta Spencer

What are you gonna do to stop it? I have no idea how, how to stymie it. I don’t even listen to Fox News. I don’t know. But any of those right wings, you know, theorists if you dignify them… with that term… they’ve got a right to speak. I believe in freedom of speech.

Marc Eliot Stein

Oh, yeah. But I believe… the answer is we have to fix our problems… if we don’t end war, we will never have a good government. That’s what I believe. I believe war and democracy; the institutions of war and democracy are incompatible. How can we possibly call ourselves a democracy when we’re inflicting violence or profiting on inflicting violence in other countries, and, you know, the world has not been connected for that long — 100 years ago, it was possible for a person in the United States or in Canada, to not realize the effects that militarism is having around the world. We don’t have that problem anymore. Now we know… how guilty we are. So again, this is why I’m an anti-war activist. This is why I don’t you know, I have some friends, by the way, and I respect them, who spend a lot of time calling people for elections… vote for Joe Biden vote for… this Congressman. I don’t spend any time on electioneering. I spend time on anti-war activism, because the election is… downstream from the problem. The problem is more fossil fuels, greed, capitalism… Does that kind of answer your question? I mean… the questions you’re asking can’t be answered easily, of course. But that’s how I would do —

Metta Spencer

well, you’re absolutely an ally, I am delighted to have this conversation with you. And our hearts are exactly in the same place. Whether… our operational priorities are how you schedule your day, and where you’re going to write checks to cover this or that fund. Whether you’re covering the same things that I’m — I don’t know, but we are, they’re certainly compatible… the organizations that you support, and the ones that I support are certainly compatible. And working in the same direction? I think… there’s value in really noting that… people who are working on pandemics or people who are working on… food security… people who are working to try to solve cyber risks, those are people who are working on the same system. Yes, that we’re all working against. We’re all trying to solve the same set of problems that are interrelated. And I think we ought to know each other a little better and, and be in touch and if anything, find ways of collaborating more, you know, I’d like to, I do have good contacts in the World Beyond War. I’d like to have more. I mean, you know, let’s find ways of helping each other. So, terrific.

Marc Eliot Stein

Let’s do this. I’d love to have you on the World Beyond War podcast, which I host I do one episode every month. So, let’s, let’s do more of this. I mean… we’re both putting out messages here. So, let’s, and I agree, we are allies, and I’m glad to know you.

Metta Spencer

Great. Good to make a new friend. Thank you so much, Mark… Take care.

T182. The McIntyre Powder Project

Posted on March 12, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T182. The McIntyre Powder Project

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 182
Panelists: Janice Martell, Dr. Richard Denton, and Dr. Keith Meloff
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 9 February 2021
Date Transcribed: 18 February 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. And we’ve been talking quite a bit lately about uranium mining. Because one of our main concerns project save the world is about radioactive contamination. So of course, we talk, there’s a lot of radioactive contamination in Canada, I would say, especially in Ontario, because we depend so much on nuclear power. But and so I’ve had a lot of friends who’ve been here talking about the dangers of nuclear waste and problems about mining. Now, I think we need to go a little bit beyond that, because there are other kinds of issues involved in mining as well. health issues, and I would say even they involve human rights issues, because public health and human rights converge at a certain point when you get people being forced to take measures that may not be for their own health, but for other reasons. So, I’ve become acquainted with a lady who is very concerned about an issue called McIntyre pot powder. Her name is Janice Martel,

Nice to join you, Metta. Thank you so much for having me here.

Metta Spencer

It’s wonderful to see you. And I’ve also invited a couple of physicians who are knowledgeable about these matters. Dr. Richard Denton is a dear friend of mine who works quite a lot on the public health safety of mining and exposure to radiation. And he and Janice both live in Sudbury now. So, they’re just about to get acquainted. And Dr. Keith Meloff is a physician who has done work on precisely the health issues that Janice is so concerned about.

Richard Denton / Keith Meloff

Okay, good.

Metta Spencer

I’d like to start off by asking Janice Martell to tell us her story. She’s the founder of the McIntyre Powder project. And tell me about it.

Janice Martell

Well, the McIntyre powder project is a bit of an Erin Brockovich type of project. Basically, my father, his name is Jim Hobbs. He was an underground miner in Elliott Lake Ontario and in the uranium mines. He also worked in the Sudbury area mines. But when he went to Elliot lake in 78, he started underground there and had to breathe in a finely ground aluminum-oxide dust called McIntyre powder. It was named after the McIntyre mine in Timmins, Schumacher, Ontario, developed there in the late 1930s. And by the early 1940s, it was being used in all of the gold mines in the Timmins area, sort of sequentially, and it was introduced into uranium mines in the late 50s and early 60s. And the McIntyre powder was theorized to prevent silicosis, so that the theory was that if you inhale this into your lungs, it would affect the solubility, the aluminum particles would engulf the crystalline silica, which is very sharp-edged pieces of, of silica that happen when you — they’re contained in the ore bodies high in amounts in uranium and gold mining. And when you break apart that rock in mining, this crystalline silica — they, the miners are inhaling this dust. And it can cause scarring in the lungs and make the lungs less flexible so that you can’t breathe. This is silicosis, and the rates of silicosis are really high in, particularly in the in the Porcupine mining camps, around Timmins, and mining executives there came up with this theory, in conjunction actually with the Banting Institute in in Toronto, [it] had some involvement in in trying to solve this silicosis issue. And they started applying miners with it —

Metta Spencer

Excuse me, but what would be the symptoms of silicosis? Anyway, in other words, we were going to pre- it prevented disease but I don’t know what that disease would have looked like.

Janice Martell

So, it like I say, you’re breathing in these this crystalline silica molecule molecules, it causes scarring in the lungs, so it makes the lungs less elastic so that it’s harder and harder to breathe. People with silicosis, they have you know, sort of caved in chests because they have a hard time getting their breath. They can have a very blue appearance or you know…. It leads to death and in in Elliott Lake where the crystalline silica content is that much higher in the in the mines, probably close to double what it is in the gold mines. You had miners dying in the late 1960s, early, early 1970s, for mines that just opened in the 1950s. And usually silicosis has a, you know, a 20, 20+ year course before it would lead to death, but they were dying in droves in the what fraction of the of the miners whatever, contract that disease. It’s been a while since I looked at those stats. There was a survey done in in the late 1920s, I believe, by the one of the Interior ministries, to look into it, the Sudbury rates were quite a bit lower because their silica content in the rock was quite a bit lower. And Dr. Meloff is showing you a canister of McIntyre powder, aluminum dust. So, they would grind up this aluminum dust put it into these canisters. And for miners before they went underground, on shift, they would have a formula for the room content. So, it was one gram per 1000 cubic feet of room content. And they would so they would put so many canisters in a compressed airline, they would puncture them and send out this blast of aluminum dust that as miners are changing their clothes to go underground, getting into their work clothes, they would be inhaling this for generally around 10 minutes, or so sometimes a little bit more, but usually around that that amount of time, before they went underground. So, it was a it was a forced… there was no informed consent. They certainly didn’t know. You know, they were just told to breathe deep This is gonna prevent silicosis — there was no, you know, here’s the risks, here’s the benefits. And they really didn’t know. The documentation that I looked at. said it would take at least 15 years before they even know if it had any effect on silicosis. They had no control group for this. It was just a forced human experimentation, public health, industrial health experiment that was conducted from officially from 1943 until 1979. It was a Fifth Estate episode, in a Toronto Star, you know, copro- investigation that really shut that down in, in September 1979.

Richard Denton

They, they take an elevator down the shaft, a stunning depth, actually. And before in the elevator, they blew in this aluminum oxide dust, it was like a cloud of smoke that they were inhaling before they went down the cage all the way into the mine. So, this was a procedure where they actually took numerous breaths of this very fine black or gray powder, depending on the composition at the time, into their lungs.

Janice Martell

Right before they went underground… yeah, it was done before they got into the shaft but in the mine dry or in Quirke Lake where my dad mined where my dad worked, they actually had a like a tunnel between where they, you know, got out of their street clothes and stuff and into their work clothes and they had to sit in that tunnel. And there was no way of going around it, you got locked in there. So, it was basically forcible confinement and forced aluminum dust inhalation as a condition of employment. So, if they, you couldn’t avoid it, you would get suspended if, or threatened with your job loss if you know if you fail to do it, so. So, my dad ended up with Parkinson’s 10 years after the mines closed, and my, and I knew nothing about McIntyre Powder. He didn’t talk about it at the time. I was 11 and 12 at the, at the time that he got it. So you know, I’m a kid I don’t, you know, it’s not something that he would talk to me about anyways. But when I found out about it 10 years after he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s. I wanted to know more. So, I started doing research on it. And initially there was there was basically there was two references to McIntyre powder on the internet, when I first looked into it, and one was a study that was done with by Sandra Rifat and colleagues out of the University of Toronto from a 1990 study where she actually compared, she did a mental, mini-mental status, examination. So, the kinds of tests that you would give to determine if there was any kind of dementia, she gave those to miners who had received the aluminum dust and miners who did not. And there was a statistically significantly fact for cognitive impairment in the miners who got the aluminum dust and the longer that they had been exposed to it the worse that that cognitive impairment was so it was like a dose-response relationship.

Metta Spencer

Did it look like dementia or did it just have other quality psychological qualities?

Janice Martell

It was it was a cognitive deficit. So, they didn’t, they struggled more with cognitive functioning. That’s how that’s what that study came out with. So, and the only other reference on the Internet at that time when I looked at it in 2011, was the mining Hall of Fame and it had the general manager from McIntyre Porcupine mines R. J. Ennis and you know, talked about how he cured silicosis in miners, cured that disease by introducing the aluminum dust. So, it was a real vacuum of information out there. I spoke to somebody at the United Steelworkers who had worked in Elliott Lake, and he said, you need to talk to you need to Google ‘McIntyre Research Foundation’. And when I did that there was a hit at the Ontario archives. So, I went to the archives of Ontario and did research there. I went through all of the McIntyre Research Foundation’s archival funds. And then from there started, you know, talking to miners and creating a voluntary registry to see what kind of health issues there were. And I have 545 on my volunteer registry, and I think it’s 53 of them have Parkinson’s. So that it led to that kind of sort of basic mobilizing and mapping of what kinds of health issues are there led to further study. And in 2020, we, the Occupational Cancer Research Center, just published, released their findings of a study that they did, that compared the neurological disease rates in miners who did not get the aluminum dust miners who did get the aluminum dust, and then the general population of Ontario, and it found a statistically significantly higher rate of Parkinson’s in the miners who got McIntyre powder. So, they started to compensate those miners, including my dad.

Metta Spencer

Well did it help with the silicosis in the long run?

Janice Martell

No. There was a Western Australian study, this was this spread out, the use in several countries, not just in mining, actually, in the United States. It was used in dozens and dozens of silica-dust producing factories. But the it was used in the Western Australia gold mines and a study in 2013 found that it had no impact on silicosis rates at all. And there were, that study found that there may be higher incidence of cardiovascular issues. So sudden death by cardiovascular in the miners who got it and potentially higher risk of Alzheimer’s. That’s what that study.

Richard Denton

It is the case… I was a neurologist that served in the underserviced area program of the Ministry of Health for a long time, the better part of 30 years. So, I was a traveling neurologist or an itinerant neurologist based principally in Timmins. But I actually would see patients literally all-over northern Ontario, and even as far north, northwest to Sioux Sainte Marie and Thunder Bay, and also by telemedicine either based in Timmins, which was the beginning actually of telemedicine to the north. And it had a co-location was with Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto. So those were those were the two actual sites for telemedicine. So, I consulted with people, even as far as the James Bay and the western shore, James Bay, Moose Factory and so on that I saw, a lot of people, underground miners who are exposed to the aluminum oxide and who also had early onset of dementia and other neurological disorders including Parkinson’s and Parkinson-related illnesses. In other words, Parkinson lookalikes. They weren’t Parkinson’s, but they were Parkinson-like diseases.

Metta Spencer

To ask a dumb question, because I did Google this. And one of the things they talked about was Parkinson’s disease, and Parkinson-ism. Those are two different things.

Keith Meloff

Yeah, that’s a very good question. But and in fact, it’s still in evolution because there’s an ever-increasing number of Parkinsonisms, where we are understanding the pathology is not the same as in, if you will, standard Parkinson’s disease. In any event, it is also the case and I would like to make this brief but it is the case that I collaborated because I worked in pharmaceuticals as well. Aluminum can be chelated as lead can be – copper – you can actually suck it out of the blood with medication.

Metta Spencer

I’ve heard it as some sort of offbeat treatment for some diseases, right?

Keith Meloff

But it’s actually true.

Metta Spencer

I never heard it explained what is chelation?

Keith Meloff

So what it is, is these molecules, metal molecules, iron, aluminum, copper, manganese, lead, they can be che-, there are agents that will suck them out of the blood. The lead is a toxin, ubiquitous toxin, mercury is another, some of them are harder to — so there are actual chemicals that have been around for a long time like pharmaceutical pharmaceuticals that have been around for a very long time, British anti-Lewisite, so on… And there’s one in particular that draws out iron and aluminum and it’s called Desferrioxamine and why is this important? Because there is a population of people who get the disease called thalassemia, you may or may not have heard of thalassemia, it’s actually fairly common, even in Timmins, because it is a disease that’s hereditary that afflicts people from the Mediterranean area, like Italy and Greece and so on. And there were a lot of Italian miners who had this. They would have —

Metta Spencer

I know Nancy Olivieri, who goes to Sri Lanka, I believe, well, I worked with her, with –maybe the Sri Lankans have a high incidence of it, or,

Richard Denton

Actually, we had this molecule — Ciba Geigy. It’s a Swiss company that’s now called Novartis, it’s a colossal Swiss pharma company. They made two key leaders Desferrioxamine which is given by injection, and Desferrel which is oral, and Nancy worked on a drug called Desferrel for thalassemia is a big controversy about that which I don’t want to get into. Fact of the matter is that drug is approved for oral treatment for iron overload, iron overload, specifically for thalassemia, (which is a disease we don’t need to talk about) — but it also sucks out aluminum from the blood. And Dr. McLachlan, Dr. Donald Crapper McLachlan, at the University of Toronto was very, very focused on aluminum toxicity. He was convinced that aluminum was a major contributor to Alzheimer’s disease. He was convinced of it. And he had the brains of miners that were donated to his laboratory in Toronto. Forever. I have tried in vain to find out where those brains are. No one seems to know. It is the case that they likely perished because the freezer that contained those brains broke down in a power shortage at the Tanz Institute [Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Disease] at College Street and University Avenue in Toronto, and have been forever lost. But I don’t know. And I’ve actually contacted people who do know, and the people who do know, don’t know where those brains have gone, which is very unfortunate. It’s America launched.

Metta Spencer

Are you saying that because they’re lost, nobody really knows whether Alzheimer’s or is caused by affected by aluminum?

Keith Meloff

I mean, well, it’s complicated because we, clinically these patients clinically had Alzheimer’s. And that is unequivocal. Dr. McLachlan showed us an experiment which Janice just alluded to, that Desferrioxamine slowed the progression of patients who were exposed to aluminum. It slowed their progression of dementia compared to a group of patients who’ve got a sham injection of drug. And that was published in The Lancet several years ago. And it’s an interesting publication. It’s not a perfect publication, but it’s a very suggestive publication. That Desferrioxamine actually might be useful in treating miners who are exposed to aluminum. It’s not the story is not easy, and he was part of a group scientists, one in Kentucky, who really believed that aluminum was toxic to the brain. And we have aluminum, not just for our mines, but we bake in aluminum, aluminum foil, we have underarm deodorants that are largely aluminum based. So, there’s other environmental toxicities you know, that we’re susceptible to from aluminum in the environment, it’s ubiquitous in our environment, because we eat with it all the time. A lot of food is made in aluminum. Cooking. So —

Janice Martell

if I can interject a bit, the one of the, one of the primary things that differentiates, I think with McIntyre powder is the fine ground aspect of it that it’s in the fine particulate and ultra-fine particulate size. So, we are wondering, beyond the aluminum if the, if the particle size, particulate size itself is causing problems. So, Andrew Zarnke, my, my colleague, at the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers, he’s doing studies on, that, he analyzed canisters of McIntyre powder, and found that it you know, it was in this extremely fine particulate size — in the, you know, things like air pollution where you have this fine, this beyond ultra-fine and fine and fine particulate — they have higher issues of cardiovascular disease and things like that. So those nanoparticles in and of themselves have been found throughout the body in the brain. And one of the concerns that we’re looking at is, is that particulate size itself is that the issue, the formulation of McIntyre powder, was changed in 1956. To make it even more fine. They wanted to, they wanted it to get down to the deepest recesses of the lung. And the Occupational Cancer Research Center study that was published last year showed that was released last year, showed that any mine worker who had the formulation post-1956 had an even higher risk of Parkinson’s. So, it does tend to make us think along those lines, that’s something that we need to investigate a little bit further, with respect to, you know, not just the fact that it was aluminum, but the way the manner in which it was distributed, you know, right before they went underground. I mean, when you are an underground miner, you are exposed to all kinds of, you know, silica, silica dust, diesel exhaust, there’s different kinds of toxins that you are — and some of them are carcinogenic: diesel exhaust… silica dust… arsenic — there’s things that you can be exposed to, in that environment. And right before you go underground to do that, your lungs are being overwhelmed by this, you know, it’s not like you’re, you know, the WSIB time-weighted in over an eight-hour shift. Well, that’s not how it was delivered, you had this extreme dose, right before you go on underground and overwhelmed the lungs’ systems, their natural ability to clear out, clear out dust particles. And so, you have this compromised lung and you’re in there with no ventilation because the specific instructions from the McIntyre Research Foundation, which were the mining industry executives, and some industry doctors, from this foundation, their specific instructions were that you were to have no, you know, airflow, so close all the doors, seal them, you know, get rid of any windows, or at least seal them up, and have no ventilation while you’re taking this stuff. So, you’ve compromised your lungs right before you’re now exposing them to all of these other toxins underground. So those are some of the areas of research that we’re wanting to look into further, beyond just the fact that it was aluminum, because there’s no other population in human history that was exposed to aluminum in this way. You know, this finely ground aluminum dust that they were forced to inhale. So, it’s some of the other studies can be you know, can certainly bring up concerns and things that we want to look at. But there’s this also this other aspect of it that that is really we need to study these particular miners, and in it, one of the human rights issues for me, apart from the lack of informed consent, and that they were essentially in these gas chambers, is that there was no follow up. Once they you know, once they just discontinued it, it was like, Oh, well — you started this human experiment and they — inefficient, they need to follow up with these miners and find out what happened to them? And that’s what I set out to do. And that’s what’s —

Metta Spencer

Because they didn’t. And they should have done. Who should have done that? That’s follow-up research. What should have happened? Well, maybe the whole thing shouldn’t have even taken place in the first place. But, you know, who should have done the kind of work you’re doing, Janice?

Janice Martell

Well, I mean, this was a public health experiment, and it should have been a public health follow up. You know, the government was aware that this was happening. And, you know, they gave their tacit approval. And when the Food and Drug legislation came in, in the late 40s, the research that I looked at is that the McIntyre Research Foundation met with the officials in Ottawa, and they basically said, Well, you know, this is, you know, you’re not giving this to the general public… our inspectors aren’t gonna be very interested in you. So, carry on. So, there was a regulatory oversight that was abysmal. They just dropped the ball and nobody followed up. And it was really when… the media made a big difference in

Metta Spencer

I would, because of what Dr. Meloff said, I’m wondering if there is a possibility that one could get aluminum poisoning and all of the cognitive, and parkinsonism or the other diseases that might result from aluminum exposure, from things like cooking and aluminum pans, or using deodorants — then your, the research would have to be rather complicated in order to separate out the effects of the aluminum that you was inhaled, as opposed to aluminum from other sources. Wouldn’t that complicate the research project? Or have you thought of that yourself in in trying to do this kind of follow up study, Janice?

Janice Martell

Well, I mean, I’m, I’m a lay person, right. So, I’m, I’m a layperson and an advocate, so I’m just kind of trying to gather the information and be a resource around it. But I mean, the …JM aluminum toxicity is unquestionable, it’s neurotoxic. But how the mechanisms, you know how that might affect something like Alzheimer’s or dementia. Dr. Denton has his hand up you? Yeah, jump in there. Go ahead, please.

Richard Denton

I just want to make a couple of points. One, I’m just a country doctor. But as a country, doctor, you have a lot of patients, and you see clusters of disease occurring. And you wonder why. And rarely, though, do we actually then try to find out? What is the case? You know, I can think of my colleague, Dr. John O’Connor, who saw a cluster of cancers in the Alberta tar sands, and traced that to the toxins that were coming from that industry and basically had to leave town as a result of that —

Metta Spencer

The story there. What’s that about? That people got mad because they felt that you found out something they didn’t want to know.

Janice Martell

You don’t bite the hand that feeds you in an industry town.

Richard Denton

Yeah. So that that’s it, but I again, want to applaud people like Janice, because it’s often the lay people or miners. There is a miner in Kirkland Lake, who traced his lung cancer to radon gas that is a heavier-than-air gas. It therefore concentrates in the mines. It’s radioactive. It’s not only in the uranium mines, but it’s in all the mines. And as you were alluding to, Metta, it was hard to eliminate things like smoking, because a lot of the miners smoked. And so therefore, they said, Wow, well, your lung cancer is due to smoking, but he did not smoke and was able to finally get WCB, the workman’s compensation board to recognize that that as a health hazard. And we now know that radon gas is the second cause of lung cancer. And it’s… compensable and it’s also found in basements of houses. And so, you now can test that. So again, I simply want to applaud people like Janice for doing this research, you would think that it should be as doctors, but often it is not. It’s the lay people. And I think the second point also is that workers are exposed to bad situations, toxins, and are not informed of it. And so, you have the women who applied the radioactive radon to… watch dials, and developed cancer as a result of that. And as again, Janice points out, the workers are not informed. And particularly we see this often with indigenous people. The uranium mines often occur on indigenous land, they are hired to do the work, but they are not told of the risks. So, my points are that we need to be doing a lot more research. We need to, it’s people like Janice, and miners and people who are the workers who are really the heroes for pointing these problems out. And then it is finally up, back to people like Dr. Meloff and scientists who then can do the research to find these problems. But to me, the real heroes are people like Janice, and I just want to make that point, who —

Metta Spencer

I’m glad you

Richard Denton

took the risk of workers in situations of being exposed to toxins, and not knowing about it.

Janice Martell

Thank you. I have to say Dr. Meloff, many of the people that I talk to remember you, they bring up your name. And I when I say that I’ve met you and that, you know, they’re just very grateful because you believed them, you know, and you said yes, this person has Parkinson’s or parkinsonism or whatever. And, you know, when I was thinking about coming on this, this this show and having a conversation about this, and thinking about how it how it really connected with peace. In order to achieve peace when there’s been wrongdoing, you have to acknowledge the wound, you have to acknowledge the wrongdoing and that this was swept under the carpet and people like yourself. Dr. Meloff, you, you were a frontline physician who gave validity to their lived experiences and they you know, 30 and 40 years later, those families remember you. And I just wanted to say that.

Richard Denton

Thank you. You know, it’s interesting that the source of the aluminum that I provided for further study was given to me in 1989 by a woman called Erma Vosdingh, from Virginiatown. So, most people in Toronto have no idea where Virginiatown is. I actually know. It’s, it’s not far from Kirkland. But I mean, this was because her father had complications from the aluminum oxide. So, it’s an absolute irony that I have like a dozen canisters, because she provided me with about a dozen canisters [of] the McIntyre, powder, some of which were a little different in color. So, there were some that were grayish, and some that were blackish. And that I think, is what Janice is talking about that the fine powder may have different particle size. There’s no doubt in my mind. We have other epidemiological evidence of metals causing problems. Lead is the best known I would say. Lead is terrible. Because lead affects not only the brain, it also affects your blood forming, because you get anemia. Children who eat paint chips that are leaded. I don’t know if you’re familiar with this, but it’s a very, this is serious problem is still a problem in North America. And you read about Flint, Michigan, where they have lead in the water, a monumental problem. A pediatrician there was… noticing that children were getting anemia. And it was it was because of lead in the water. I’m so old. I’ve taken care of children with anemia related to lead and brain damage — so that’s how old I am. I actually treated these children who were exposed to lead in Minneapolis. And there’s manganese miners in Chile, they get Parkinson’s disease. And even in the Negev, you may have heard of the Negev, it’s in southern Israel — Bedouins were a migratory… an indigenous population that traveled between Egypt and Jordan and Israel and so forth. They eat, they drink water out of leaded pottery. And there have been cases in, among Bedouins who’ve developed Parkinson’s from the lead. So, this is a really global problem. And the radium, I couldn’t agree more with Richard, I mean… radiation is bad for the brain, it’s bad for your body. It causes malignancies, among many other things. So, this is a monumental, I really think this aluminum powder should be studied in, in animal experiments. To look at the brain after exposure to aluminum oxide,

Metta Spencer

Well, that’s one thing I wanted to ask is we need to move on to talking about the future. I’m wondering, out of all this experience, and experimentation and, and research and tragedy, what has been learned and what needs to be studied further? And what actions are should be taken now? What do we know that we should be doing something about? Probably, maybe Janice and Keith Meloff have different ideas about where to go from here. But I’m always looking for solutions. So what needs to be done, that we should promote as a line of either research or policymaking?

Janice Martell

Certainly what Dr. Malak was talking about with animal experimentation, I think that that is, is something that is being contemplated. The initial review, or the initial assessment of what McIntyre powder is, was necessary to developing something that could be consistent to be able to do those kinds of experiments. So that’s sort of the first step that that Andrew Zarnke, and his colleagues, including Health Canada, had, were part of that review. And, and that would certainly give us some models as to as to what the impacts are, and to be able to study that… there’s a technology… some nano diamond technology where you can attach this tracker to the particles of aluminum, so that when it’s you do the inhalation experiments, you can actually see in the body where it goes. So, can it pass the blood-brain barrier and those kinds of things. So that’s something that is being contemplated. And I think the kind of study that the Occupational Cancer Research Center did for neurological disorders, they could do something similar for the other kinds of health issues that we’re seeing showing up. I mean, respiratory is huge, different cancers, cardiovascular conditions…. One of the things the OCRC study found was they did find higher rates of Alzheimer’s, and higher rates of motor neuron disease in mining in general, not related to McIntyre powder. But compared to the general population and motor neuron disease, that diagnosis, they had some difficulties, because of the number codes that are used in family physician offices versus hospitals, in figuring out, you know, how many of those would be something like ALS, but in general 70% of those diagnostic codes refer to ALS? And I have —

Metta Spencer

Let me unpack that. Are you saying I think I did see reference to this, that ALS itself is one of these motor neuron disease problems, and that it could be could be affected by aluminum or by just any kind of thing in the mining environment? Any mining?

Janice Martell

Yeah. And I, I, I’ve seen some high rates as well around pulp and paper mills. So, I’d be interested in knowing what the common elements were in pulp and paper mill towns in Abitibi. From what I understand, there was an iron ore mine that had I think five, with ALS — in the Kirkland Lake area… So yeah, there’s some, there’s some things, certainly that are beyond my scope. But things that I’d be interested in and on a sort of a public policy issue. I think that there should be a national registry. If you are a worker, I mean, we’ve become a globalized workforce. If you are a worker, you have a right to know everything that is — have a registry, everything that you’ve been exposed to at work, that you and your state, or your legal representatives should be able to have access to that registry, so that they can track and see what are the health outcomes of workers who are exposed to certain things — at some point asbestos was not an issue, right? Because nobody was making the connection. At some point, beryllium wasn’t an issue… Those kinds of toxins and their health effects need to be studied if we’re going to put workers in a situation. And sometimes you don’t know at the time that it could be toxic. And lots of times you did. And I think that we need to have that and push for that. And part of my going into this was… not just to show and find out the answer that I wanted to find out for my dad… was his Parkinson’s related, which I have that answer now… if you can show with this group of workers… this was not an inherent working condition, this was introduced by a powerful mining industry and a government that kowtowed to them. And if you can show what a human rights abuse it was, and how we need to push beyond the way that we deal with workers now? You know, workplaces close down by the time these occupational diseases develop, unions disband. You know, when, you know, when the mining industry in Elliott Lake decommissioned and the mines closed, those locals of the… unions dissolved, because there was no more workplace. We need someone (and it needs to be a national effort) to track what these workers are exposed to. Right now, we’re retroactively doing that at the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers. But it’s… very difficult to do and you have a lot of deceased workers who can’t give you what they were exposed to in their working conditions. So, we kind of look at it as a cluster and try… people who are alive can tell the tales for the people who passed. And the things that I would recommend.

Metta Spencer

Thank you, you obviously have something on your mind.

Richard Denton

Just a couple other points, Metta. I think as Janice has pointed out, to see a toxin develop in people, it’s often 20+ years, to show the cancers and that sort of thing. So that makes doing the research difficult. Number two, I think we need to use what we call the precautionary principle, which is: if you don’t know what it’s going to do, don’t do it. And so, you know, we have seen the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, CAPE has launched a ban on the cosmetic use of herbicides and pesticides for lawns, and we know that those are toxins. So that that is something that can be done. And it was interesting that it started in a little community of Hudson, Quebec, just a small community. And now with the help of CAPE it spread across Canada, and the provinces have now restricted that use. So eventually things do change and… come to light. You know, we thought that plastics were inert, that that was not a problem. Now we know that it’s the microplastics that cause problems, it’s now endemic in our lakes in our streams and in the oceans and is affecting all life there. Not only the large plastic that gets into straws, into turtles and things like that, and in the bellies of whales, but is also the microplastics that is now a problem. And as you also said earlier, with cooking… look at Teflon. We think that’s a marvelous agent. It keeps spills… off your clothing. If you don’t have to use a lot of oil in your cooking, it just slips off the pan. But it too is a toxin and a carcinogen. So all of these things are problems. And then the other point I want to make is that it’s not only the miners, but it’s their families. And the mines fill up the lakes with these toxins. And they become the tailings, become the slimes. And they… often have heavy metals, which then can become airborne, and again, get into the food that we eat. Again, Dr. Meloff and I are old enough to remember when it was recommended that we should all be eating liver. Because it was high in iron and —

Metta Spencer

I still eat liver, or I still leave eat liver, what’s the matter with liver I’ve missed? Well,

Richard Denton

It’s been taken off the Canada Food Guide. Back in the day when you and I grew up, we were recommended to eat liver. But now we know that the liver concentrates toxins. And because we feed animals, all these various toxins, you should not be eating too much liver. And you know, you can now get young calves’ liver or baby beef, but you would not be wanting to eat cow’s liver. And again, we don’t recommend eating wild game liver for that very reason. Because again, they are high in toxins. So yes, you should be eating game. Because it’s low in fat. And that tastes good. But you need to be avoiding the organs that concentrate the toxins like livers and kidneys.

Metta Spencer

Well, we started out with a few things to worry about. And now we end the program with a whole lot more things to worry about. This is not cheerful news. I’m sorry. I’d like to end with an upbeat message, but I’m not quite sure what it is. Dr. Meloff can you think of anything cheerful to end with?

Richard Denton

Well, I I agree with Janice, that what would be cheerful for me is to do exactly what she recommends is and that is to have a registry. I mean, the other interesting catchphrase would be class action lawsuit. Because if you actually think about the violation of proper experimental procedures, I mean, all of this work was done in violation of the Helsinki Accords… people who were exposed without informed consent to toxins. And this is I mean, they were there were trials over this, you know, in Nuremberg, I mean, this evolved into the Helsinki Accords, and international standards for doing clinical research. And I can tell you, there are numerous examples in history of violations of these human rights, testing hepatitis vaccines on mentally retarded children, for example, by very good people, I’m not talking the — these were not evil people who did this work. But they were actually in violation of standard experimental practices. And the same applies to the miners. This, this went into the 70s. I mean, this went on into the 70s, long past. These articles that were enunciated in the Helsinki Accords have proper safeguards for “experiments on human beings”. So I think that that would be actually a very interesting exercise. I have no doubt there are a lot of lawyers who would take this on. I don’t think it’s — I think it would be a win. I just think if it goes to the Supreme Court, I honestly think it would win compensation.

Metta Spencer

I’m trying to think organizationally, of how movements work. And I’m running this thing called Project Save the World. And one of our one of what we’ve chosen as a mandate, if you will, is to work on pandemics, and another is to work on radioactive contamination. And both of them are medical issues. But would this larger project that you’re saying — a registry of exposure to potential toxins? If we took that as kind of a plank, that in a way would almost cover both? pandemics to some extent, and certainly the radioactive contamination exposure, wouldn’t it? So that that kind of recommendation or proposal or campaign would be right up our alley, wouldn’t it? Richard, what do you think? You know, our project? And would that be useful for people who are working on uranium mining and exposure to uranium? Or nuclear waste, which is some of the stuff you’ve been engaged in?

Richard Denton

Most definitely, most definitely Metta.

Janice Martell

The cheeriest thing I can think to end this: that there’s hope that what happened to these miners… and to the factory workers in the States, this is used in Mexico, the people that I haven’t been able to even reach yet — that their life experience is going to promote the kinds of changes globally. You know, because there are disadvantaged workers… when a mine cable doesn’t meet Canadian standards anymore, we send it to a third world country and it meets their standards. Well, there should there shouldn’t be a privileged country. Workplace standards in a poor country, workplace standards of … migrant workers or whatever. It’s a human rights issue. People have a right to be safe at work and not be exposed —

Metta Spencer

I’m speaking as a campaigner. How would you if you were going to take this issue up and make this the crux of a campaign? Where would you locate it? Would you try to get it put through the WHO? You’re saying, it’s not just a local thing because poor countries have —

Janice Martell

And so I thought about United Nations, it is on my radar, more than a class action suit, to do a human rights application for what happened to the miners and it’ll that hopefully will be a platform to or a pathway to, to getting this because that would be my ultimate goal, No amount of money is going to,

Metta Spencer

I mean, you need an organizational affiliation and institution to carry them the ball, you know, especially if you want it to be big. So, you need to figure out who is your partner. And I don’t know. Dr. Meloff, or Richard, both of you?

Richard Denton

Well, a precedent is tobacco. And… the provinces and the governments are now going after the tobacco industry for not doing proper testing, not recognizing it, even when the evidence did come out. We’re still advertising a dangerous product, and not making it aware. And so I think, again, it’s government’s that need to be doing this and governments need to be doing the regulation. And when we take away that regulation, then problems happen. We see this every day. We see this in the nursing homes right now with COVID. The regulations have been decreased. The people that were to do the inspections haven’t been doing it simply because that they were cut back, the numbers were cut back. And as a result, we now have a problem with COVID. And so, but I think Keith’s point of legal action is you need to put financial con-, earmark things or tag things with finances, with money. And it’s only when you start to get legal action that things actually start to change.

Janice Martell

I have looked into it and the current premier in Ontario, brought in legislation to change the act around how to sue people. And if you sue, you have to actually — basically negligence is off the table — you have to prove that the person intended to do harm when… so it’s, it’s dead in the water for that reason. And to me whether it did harm or not, it’s the… negligent aspect… the ‘we don’t know what this is going to do’. We think this, we didn’t have a control group… there was some evidence of, you know, manipulation of the — just how the initial experiments were done on humans, you know, that, even by the standards of that day… did not measure up whatsoever, and this was just pushed through. So, I, to me, it’s the issue: that they were exposed is more of a human rights violation than whether or not it did harm. I would certainly want to know whether it did harm. But every person who, who was exposed to this (against any Nuremberg Code) deserves compensation for that and recognition for that, period. And when they have that, that’s how you get a path to healing. How do you how do you heal when it’s just, you know, some of the quotes from my miners, it is mind blowing, you know — “I had a baby, I had a baby. I was 18 years old. I was a father, what am I going to do? I didn’t want to inhale this. What am I going to do? I had no choice.”

Metta Spencer

Thank you so much. It’s really wonderful that you’ve done this. And heroic, really, because you did it on your own. You just took you took the initiative. Dr. Meloff, I’m going to give you the last word, it has to be a quick word, because we’re over time.

Keith Meloff

I would like to follow this up sometime. I’m on the side here. For me, it’s personal as well, because I’ve been involved with this at many levels. And these are terrible diseases. I mean, if it’s, it’s actually one of the more discouraging parts of being a neurologist is dealing with these diseases. They’re all lethal. The ones we’ve all talked about Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, all of these diseases are lethal. And they aren’t curable. They’re treatable, but they’re not curable. And they shortened lives. So I’m on side here.

Metta Spencer

Thank you. I really appreciate this extremely interesting and important conversation. So some follow up, I don’t know but Bless you all for the work that you’re doing.

Richard Denton / Keith Meloff / Janice Martell

Thank you. Nice talking to you. Bye everybody.

T152. Peaceworking in Armenia

Posted on March 11, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T152. Peaceworking in Armenia

Peaceworking in Armenia

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 152
Panelists: Jill Carr-Harris
Host: Metta Spencer
Date Aired: 4 January 2021
Date Transcribed: 10 March 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

I’m Metta Spencer, and this is a great day for me because I get to talk to Jill Carr-Harris, a very dear friend who’s been off leading tracks across Asia. She was going to march from Delhi to Geneva, with a troupe of people following her. And she got as far as Armenia when COVID hit; she stayed there for a couple of… months, and then went back to India. And now she’s, she’s here in Toronto with me. I haven’t seen her because of COVID. But this is our first little get together in a while. Hello, dear Jill, how are you?

Jill Carr-Harris

Hello, Metta. What a pleasure to see you again.

Metta Spencer

It’s wonderful. Yeah, well, we have a great deal to do to get caught up, we need to actually skip a lot of your adventures this time. Or put them on hold for a while, so that we can talk about a serious global issue now, where I think you know more than most people. I’ve had some conversations lately about what has been going on in the Caucasus. And I know that you got stuck in Armenia. Since then Irakli has alarmed me with his prophecies — that serious human rights violations have been going on and may get worse. In, especially in Armenia, or with respect to the Armenian population,

Jill Carr-Harris

On this very, very important issue in the South Caucasus. It’s significant in terms of, in my view, global peace relations. So what happened is that, you know, Armenia… is an ancient civilization. It is one of the most ancient civilizations, and so many archaeologists and historians live in Armenia, and will tell you — as well, the 1000s of museums they have in their country will tell you — that Armenia was always in difficulty because it sat between what was once the Turkish Ottoman Empire [and] the Russian …(later the Soviet Union), and in early times the Iranian Empire. And so it was always squeezed. It’s a country that knows conquest… and yet ethnic Armenians have survived in this region, being mountain people… being really from this part of the world… the Turkish areas and the South Caucusus. They have a sacred relationship to their hereditary lands… There were many Armenians in the… Ottomans — living in Turkey. And at one point, and I don’t know the full story, but at one point, the, the Ottoman leaders really created a pogrom like our Jewish pogroms, and [in 1915-16] forced the Armenians to go on a long walk and many many died in what is known as the Armenian genocide . This was

Metta Spencer

about 100 years ago, right

Jill Carr-Harris

was about 100 years ago, it was over a period of about 10 or 11 years, from 1909 to 1921. that this happened, but they take usually the day of 1915… [or dates] in between to talk about it. But almost a million people were killed. And it what was very, very sad is that when the great powers after the first war, were trying to negotiate with a new Ataturk [regime] because, you know, at the end of the first war, the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, and the new Turkish country emerged. The Great Powers said to Turkey… even though they knew about the Armenian Genocide, everybody knew about it, they said, for the interests of the Turkish state, we will not make this Armenian genocide an issue — so that Turkey can… recover, you know, create its new statehood. And so as a result of that the Turks never acknowledged this genocide. And as time went on, they became harder and faster in their decision never to recognize it because if the Turks did recognize this genocide, they would have to pay reparations. So that was the first thing I want to record as as a very important historical moment. The second one, I believe it was under Stalin. Nagorno-Karabakh was part of ethnic Armenia. And when the Socialist Republics were being formed… getting a sense of their own boundaries. Stalin gave Nagorno-Karabakh to his Azerbaijan, but it was ethnic[ally] Armenia. And it was just willy nilly. He had maybe an, you know, an interest in Azerbaijan at that moment in time, but there was no logic to it. But that’s what happened. So at the time of the dissolution of the Soviet Union… starting in 1990, the Nagorno-Karabakh also like Azerbaijan, and Armenia, declared independence. Nagorno-Karabakh could as another… area, claim its independence, but that was not suitable — that was very welcomed by the former socialist state of Armenia, but unwelcomed by the former state of Azerbaijan, former Socialist Republic, so they went and had a war over Nagorno- Karabakh in 1991. It had been building up. As the dissolution of the Soviet Union happened, people in Nagorno-Karabakh felt very uncomfortable and the… nationalism that had been under the surface, during the whole period of the Soviet Union suddenly erupted. So there was in from… 1988. on there was.. Azeris were… killing and taking the homes of Armenians in Azerbaijan and Armenians were kicking out Azeris from their homeland.

Metta Spencer

Okay, we should stop it enough to say that the Azeris are the national group in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijanis would be the citizens of Azerbaijan, but Azeris would be the, the tribal identity or whatever you want to call it, a national identity of people, right.

Jill Carr-Harris

What I’m trying to say and to be quick about it… as we saw in the dissolution of Yugoslavia into ethnic struggles of different groups, the same thing happened in Azerbaijan and Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh’s ethno nationalism came up, and each side wanted to to see Nagorno-Karabak… the Azerbaijan government wanted to see it under Azerbaijan, and the Armenians wanted to see it under Armenia or leave it independent. So fast forward. Well, they fought a war for three year: 30,000 people were killed. It was an absolutely horrible war. After that war in 93, a particular Council was set up under the what they call, it’s called the OSCE… under Europe, a particular negotiating body was set up in order to resolve this dispute, right. So peace was created, there was a body set up to resolve this dispute. And the chairs of that body was the US, France and Russia.

Metta Spencer

The Minsk Group,

Jill Carr-Harris

it’s the Minsk Group, OSCE Minsk Group… that was set up to find peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Now… they obviously over 20 years did not successfully find a way although there was… many meetings… and that was partly because in my view, Russia did not want to see (particularly when Putin came back into power, when Putin became the head of government in Russia)… they did not want to see it… this was part of my discussions in Armenia. Even though we tried to involve Azerbaijan, it was difficult. So it was mainly between Armenians and Georgians. But we spent a great deal of time talking to people and learning that, that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the region did not create horizontal linkages. They did not create cross country trade agreements and greater understanding and peace process — like [in] this Nagorno-Karabakh situation… the vertical, the vertical linkage to Moscow remained strong, right. In spite of their independent governments, and this was a great shame. But this had to do with the status-quo, governing groups in the different regions… the governing group in the 1990s in Armenia, was pro-Moscow, they saw the advantage of leaving that vertical link to Moscow (because don’t forget, they had Azerbaijan on one side, and they had Turkey on the other side). And they saw it in their best security interest to keep that vertical link of trade, of commerce, to the Soviet Union. They did build up commerce and trade with Iran. They did have a good relationship with Georgia. They could not sort out this with Azerbaijan. And Turkey kept its same adamant stance about the Armenian genocide. So… there was a bit of, a few skirmishes, in 2016 there was a skirmish and so on, between Azerbaijan and Armenia, but it was basically a frozen conflict. Now, what I understood, — and I’d like to give a little personal narrative here — I went to Nagorno-Karabakh in advance of our march, to try to understand the situation. And this was in July of 2019, so about a year and a half ago. I went by getting a visa, from the people in Nagorno-Karabakh, I knew that the Azerbaijan government would not really like it. But I went through the legal channels of getting a visa, and going and we… I was with a group of three people. But we went only on a weekend — not to just to observe, like an observer group — we didn’t go to have any formal meetings. We met some government people, but our main interest was to see how to set up a Gandhi center in Nagorno-Karabakh that could help build peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. So this was our intention. And we met people at the university there, and we discussed it and there was a lot of interest. And we were moving in that direction. When we returned to India, in preparation for the march, thinking that we could bring the march to Nagorno-Karabakh, and we… were interested to talk to the Azerbaijan government because we were hoping to send another group through Azerbaijan. So this was, there was no favoritism to Armenia. As far as we were concerned, we were only trying to understand how this march could reinforce peace and not reinforce division. But when we got back to Delhi, we were called by the Azerbaijan government to sit down and have a cup of tea with them. So we went… two out of the three people who I was with, came to this meeting, and after a few nice formalities, the Azerbaijan ambassador to India said to us, you have been blacklisted by our government because you entered our territories without our permission, and you must sign something saying you apologize to our government, and then we will consider your peace march, and we will consider not blacklisting you. And you know, we were so taken aback — we had no idea what we were dealing with. What we were dealing with was an ambassador who was speaking directly for the senior foreign policy people… back home… maybe even at the President’s wish. And so we were shaken and said, “Well, sir, excuse me, but we did not in any way try to go into Nagorno-Karabakh without the Azerbaijan permission. We only did it because we were invited. We got a visa by the the government who is now governing that area.

Metta Spencer

The government that was running Nagorno-Karabakh was part officially of Azerbaijan, but must have not been seen as such by Azerbaijan, or else they wouldn’t mind having that government issue you a visa —

Jill Carr-Harris

No, no. So after the war of 93, and there was frozen peace, the Nagorno Karabakh people set up their own self government. And this self-government got the tacit support of the Armenians, but not of the Azerbaijan government, of course, because after… what the war did, was it flushed out large numbers of Azeri people, people of Azeri background, as you mentioned, from this region, and it was now predominantly ethnic Armenian-dominated and they set up that —

Metta Spencer

but if you look at the map or a lot of official documents, it looks like Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan.

Jill Carr-Harris

Correct. And that’s what’s confusing. It’s, you know… may I clarify that, which is, the Azerbaijan government had gone to the United Nations, showed them Stalin’s declaration or whatever legitimacy they had, and the UN because of — whatever, I don’t, I haven’t studied the politics and who is behind it and who introduced it, but the UN agreed with Azerbaijan, the UN Security Council, or the General Assembly, I’m not sure which, I believe it was the Security Council, possibly, for whatever reason, maybe because (Azerbaijan) Baku had recently found oil, and that oil was controlled by Anglo- American interests. And so maybe that had a reason for them to make a deal. But this UN agreement was not accepted by either the people in Nagorno-Karabakh as they described it to me, nor to Armenia. It was a bilateral decision, as far as they were concerned. Okay.

Metta Spencer

bilateral meaning UN and Azerbaijan…

Jill Carr-Harris

Yeah. multilateral but negotiated bilaterally, possibly with Security Council country members. So that’s what was the situation as we were sitting in front of this ambassador in Delhi, being scolded for going into their territories. And we said frankly, “We never knew, because we just landed up in Armenia, and we applied for a visa to go to Nagorno-Karabakh to understand whether a Gandhi foundation could be set up, and we got our visas and went, so excuse me, sir, we didn’t know that that was not legitimate, from your point of view, excuse me, for that we regret our decision of not getting more information. But we cannot apologize for something where we got a visa and went, right? Because that would mean that we are guilty. Where when we cannot say we were guilty. We actually applied for a visa. Now, whether this had gone so far that, you know, visas were… the result of a frozen conflict….”

Metta Spencer

Well, had you applied to Azerbaijan for visa? Would you’ve been able to get it that way?

Jill Carr-Harris

No, because they didn’t allow people to go to —

Metta Spencer

Unable to go in at all, if you hadn’t got the visa from Nagorno-Karabakh itself.

Jill Carr-Harris

Correct. And we went and and I have to tell you, we had written… this was actually later but we wrote to both governments, you know, we never, we were not doing this to support Armenia. We we had written both governments, we were planning to put the peace tour through both countries… we had gone to the see the ambassador in good faith to figure out how we could… bring our peace people, our peace march through Azerbaijan. And he was the one who said, “If you apologize, then we’ll discuss your peace effort.” And so we said, “Excuse me, I don’t think we can apologize. But certainly we regret not understanding that we were hurting your sensibilities, and that, you know, this was a result of a frozen conflict” and blah, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, they… made us write a letter. We apologized and the letter was sent to the foreign minister in Baku, and it was rejected. And he said we needed to apologize — by that time we were on the march. And so we we couldn’t even communicate. So it it just got left —

Metta Spencer

1000s of people from who knows all over the world who, for one reason or another go into the Nagorno-Karabakh, without getting a reprimand from the Azerbaijan government. How did they do it in those days?

Jill Carr-Harris

Well, ours was a different situation, because we were bringing international attention through a peace arch. So maybe the Azerbaijan government are not as concerned with a few individuals or tourists or maybe that’s not, but in our case, they were concerned because we were taking the messages out to the media, to Geneva, and they wanted their rightful heritage to be properly reflected. And that’s understandable. Now, I must … add, that at the time that we went into Nagorno-Karabakh, there was no Indian ambassador in Armenia, to guide us. Normally, we would have checked with the Indian ambassador in Armenia and said, You know, we’re going to Nagorno-Karabakh and … had it been the present one, he would have said, Don’t you dare, because that’s Azerbaijan. The past one was not so strict, you know, so, but the present ambassador, because we talked to him later about it, he would have said, “Look, had I been here, I would have said don’t go,” but it was before his arrival. So … our efforts to bring peace was seen by the Azerbaijan government as pro-Armenian, which was very unfortunate, because they could have used it in another way. But actually, I think by the time our peace march was going, judging by the reactions of the Indian Embassy in Yerevan in Armenia, I think already they [Azerbaijan] were planning for some sort of —

Metta Spencer

invasion or

Jill Carr-Harris

— because by the time… there was a big difference between June 2019 and February 2020, there was a very big difference in attitudes that I could see. So I suspect that Azerbaijan was already gearing up. And maybe because people like us were confusing their territory with Armenia, but as far as the Armenians are concerned — when Nikol Pashinian became prime minister in 2018. He had been formerly a journalist, and he was very interested in peace. It was one of the driving things that drove him to politics was we need to solve this, even if we need to really compromise with the Azerbaijan government. And he sat down two or three times you can see it on the in the Youtube with… in American universities primarily, different places. They sat down and they negotiate and they talked. And basically, you saw this democratically elected Nikol Pashinian. Talking to you know, Aliev [of Azerbaijan]… who is more seen as an authoritarian leader, saying, look, we really want to get this peace process on the ground and Aliev basically said, “It’s all of Nagorno-Karabakh to us, or nothing.” So there was no ground — what you had during — when you saw the war start on the 27th of September, for the 16-17 days that it raged. What you saw is Turkey had really backed up Aliev’s government with the military capacity which they needed to win over Armenia. Had they had their own military capacity [only], against which is what Armenia was gauging, that they had enough military in case there was an Azerbaijan attack, they were about equal. But Turkey came along and gave it modern drones and gave it some mercenary fighters and gave Aliev what he needed to make a brutal attack… on the ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh and that is what you saw. So as they were attacking, you could see the women and children of Nagorno-Karabakh receding back into Armenian territory, and the men stayed and fought, thousands died. You know, it’s a big part of their population. And Armenia… sent troops to help them, send military equipment to help them but they were, the Nagorno-Karabakh ethnic Armenians were leading because… there had been a recently elected new prime minister in Nagorno-Karabakh. So he was leading the fight. And, and with this Turkish military…, Pashinian either had to see complete massacre of the fighters (because they were not going to give up) of Nagorno-Karabakh, or he was going to step in and call for a ceasefire, if… I would have imagined that the Armenians would have thought that Russia was going to defend them at that point, precisely, because all these years they’ve had this… you have to see that Nikol Pashinian is a democrat, he pushed what, why he led a nonviolent revolution… the oligarchs were displaced by his mass movement and coming into power. And those oligarchs were Russian-backed oligarchs. Right? So suddenly, you see Russia is not so interested in jumping in, because they would like to see Nikol Pashinian out.

Metta Spencer

Okay, got it.

Jill Carr-Harris

So they delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed. And all of us were so surprised because they had agreements — from the perceptions of the people who I spoke with in Georgia and Armenia. So it may be biased, but their perception is that Putin did not come in on the basis of saying this is Nagorno-Karabakh… Only if Armenia is attacked, do we have any military responsibility. So that was the basis of their claim, which was a little stretched, I think… it’s not just about the the different political party, which they want to see back in power, but it’s also they want to see those vertical linkages. Back to Moscow. They didn’t want to see Nikol Pashinian , kind of wooing the West, the European Union, United States — that was not so comfortable. Yeah, they want that vertical, you know, Yerevan-Moscow, highway of trade, of commerce. They want the resources. So this democrat, of course, who came in in 2018, became a darling of the West, because he was a democrat — he was democratically elected, you know… that was another irritating part of this. And so now, Nikol Pashinian has called for elections next year. I mean, this coming January, February [2020], and he may well be pushed out of office. He says, I’m not holding on to power. but I want to see elections, I don’t want a coup. Yeah. So that’s the situation, as it stands now that Russia basically lined itself up with Turkey, very strange bedfellows because they had complementary interests in this region. Turkey wants to build a Turkic kind of, I wouldn’t say Empire, but a federation, across Azerbaijan to Central Asia, and right over to Indonesia, you know… and Russia wants the vertical link to Moscow, from Yervan. And also this way —

Metta Spencer

I’m trying to think of — because the Armenians are Christian. That would be a wart on the, on the skin of this new coalition or Turkic Empire, so to speak, that that would be a problem. Right? Is that the the main reason that?

Jill Carr-Harris

No, I don’t think so. You know, I have been to this region for many, many years. And there has never been a religious problem between Azerbaijan and Armenia. It’s not been religious. It’s been ethnic. Right. And that’s a bit different. So the religion can play into the ethnic, but it was not a religious issue. But Turkey, of course, wanted to make it a religious issue. So you have to see it’s kind of a Turkic Muslim. Yeah. And you realize that Central Asia are Turkic-related (historically) people. Now, Aliev in Azerbaijan has no interest in being under a Turkic Empire, that that is not really his interest. So he has to walk a very fine line, to keep everyone happy, but not to fall too deep into that trap. So that’s why he called on his Russian friends. And in fact, the way they tracked, they trapped Pashinian , it was Aliev who trapped Pashinian… during the war, went, sent a message to the Azerbaijan people and said: Let’s forget Turkey and Russia and sit down and talk piece, and we’ll sort out this ceasefire, and we don’t need Russia.

Metta Spencer

And he was rebuffed.

Jill Carr-Harris

And Aliev went to Putin and said, This guy is too close to the west, and is trying to go around Russia. Don’t forget Aliev trained in Russia. He’s a former — his father was the head of the Socialist Republic. He’s got good ties with Moscow. And it was because of that, that Moscow said, Okay, we’ll come in as a peace force.

Metta Spencer

Yeah. Irakli sounded quite alarmed about the possibility of genocide. I mean, that’s the word you used. Certainly. I hear he said that. There are atrocities going on now. I don’t know what’s what’s Russia’s position on that. What are these Russian peacekeepers there to do and and who’s doing what to whom know,

Jill Carr-Harris

The Georgians are at war with Russia over Abkhazia. So there’s another frozen conflict, in their country. Right. And they have kept Russia — because of their closeness to NATO and US, Europe — they’ve been able to keep Russia at bay. This [N-K] has given Russia entry into the Caucusus in a way they didn’t have before… they did have some troops on the border with Turkey in Armenia before, but this puts their troop levels up several thousands. And so they’re now in the region, and they can control a lot more. This makes the Georgians very afraid. So hints, some of the hype, Irakli does talk of genocide, I think it’s hyperbolic because genocide is a big word for what’s going on there now. Yeah. But with all with great respect to Irakli, what he’s trying to convey is a sentiment, which is that they’re losing — the South Caucasus is affected by this Russian, Russian entry, Russian peacekeepers — and it’s very dangerous for Georgia and the South Caucasus. And that is what he’s trying to say without saying that, I would say because you have to be careful in in that part of the world, how you say things. So now the genocide issue is the Armenians feel that what Azerbaijan with Turkey — mainly Turkey and mercenary support — did was to extend their genocide on Armenian people. So they see it in that in that regard, and that continues because… don’t forget, two thirds of the country… of Nagorno-Karabakh has now been taken over and now they’re trying to bring… Azerbaijan people there and flush out the Armenians there. So naturally, there’s human rights abuses. They’re all shifting around… and they’re giving up their houses in Nagorno-Karabakh. It’s not like the Azeri government, Azerbaijan government is saying, you stay in your houses, Armenians, we’ll look after you We just want — they’re pushing them out. So that is where the genocide idea comes. But I would say it’s it’s it doesn’t help to to see it as genocide just yet, I think but Armenians in their heart feel it is genocide. So —

Metta Spencer

What would you like to have happen?

Jill Carr-Harris

— So remember, I talked about these vertical linkages, when we heard about all these vertical linkages from your event, and this new desire to have… Armenia, more independent, and Georgia more independent… within this Russian Federation just be more independent. We set up a meeting on an old idea, which has been in that region, which is to set up a peace zone in the South Caucasus. Now, this sounded very, sounds very crazy now, because there’s just been a war. But this was pre-war. And what we were trying to say is that there’s a whole history of people who’ve been pushing for a peace zone in this region, why don’t we reconsider it so we can build greater horizontal linkages and not demonize Armenia, Azerbaijan, you know, by each other’s populations, but to find areas of collaboration. And similarly, just as we have in Nagorno Karabakh, we have a similar problem in Georgia, so to try to bring together this region, so it’s not divided against each other, and that we talked about a lot and it would have been still being discussed, but for the consequences of the events that came up. And so how do we, again, reintroduce this it’s going to take some time to let the dust To settle, it will depend on to some extent on the elections in Armenia next year, it will depend on how many Armenians are flushed out of Nagorno-Karabakh. So we have to let the dust settle before we can really see things. But in the meantime, there is a bit of a sense of victory, not only to the Azerbaijan government, but to the Turks and to the Russians.

Metta Spencer

You know, what I’m gathering from this is that for the time being, the reality is that this peace agreement, as basically dictated by Russia, is is the name of the game that one lives… within the framework of that. There is no intention of challenging that at the moment, or maybe ever. Even though Armenia wouldn’t like it, is how much wiggle room is there within that framework? For some kind of change?

Jill Carr-Harris

I think you need to talk to people more knowledgeable than I but I would just suggest that if the OSCE Minsk Group got reactivated… they could have an influence. And that has France and the US. So we’ve been waiting for the US to stabilize, I think to see whether that could happen.

Metta Spencer

Okay, so it might change under under Biden’s influence. Although I don’t I don’t think the US has shown any interest in the region for so long that I don’t think they have much influence.

Jill Carr-Harris

It’s possible. It’s possible but it’s also possible that they may have more interest in the Trump government.

Metta Spencer

Thank you, my dear.

Jill Carr-Harris

Thank you so much. Happy New Year.

Metta Spencer

Happy New Year.

T176. Peacemakers in the Holy Land

Posted on March 6, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T176. Peacemakers in the Holy Land

Project Save the World / Talk Show Episode Number: 176
Panelist: Father Bob Holmes
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 1 February 2021
Date Transcribed: 16 February 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Okay, Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. And today I’m going to meet somebody that I’m supposed to have known for about 20 years. Father Bob Holmes, it’s okay for me to call you Bob, right? That’s great. Now, somehow, Father Bob, and I have been in the same network of friends for many, many years, and somehow as far as I know, we’ve never met. So we have many friends in common. And the reason is that a lot of my friends like to go on excursions to the Holy Land. And Father Bob takes groups of people I guess every year to Israel and Palestine. And he’s quite a peace activist. I suppose that’s the main, main reason that we know each other sort of, at least by reputation, and today, we’re going to get acquainted a little bit because he’s going to tell me about these trips that I wish I could have taken with him. But I’ve never been able to do. So hello, Father Bob Holmes.

Bob Holmes

Hello

Metta Spencer

hi. Now let’s, let’s get down to business because I am very keen to know a little bit about these wonderful excursions that you lead every year. I guess it’s every year, isn’t it to Israel and Palestine? How long have you been doing that?

Bob Holmes

Well, I belong with the Christian Peacemaker teams. And I’ve been working in our team in Hebron for over 20 years. And I’ve been taking some CPT delegations even right from the beginning. But these ones, the peace and justice pilgrimages have been started in 2006… every year… except 2020.

Metta Spencer

Oh, yes. Yeah, there have been some real changes in a lot of people’s lives. Because of the yes, well, good. So you really must know a lot of people. And let me inquire a little bit about your own work otherwise, because I think your, you’re a Basilian priest are you? priest, and and you what, what do you do when you’re not traveling?

Bob Holmes

Well, I was a Basilian priest teacher for 30 years, then then I got into peacemaking and join the Christian Peacemaker teams. And I was full time at that for three years, most of it in Palestine and Israel. And since then, I’ve been, for the Basilian fathers I’ve been their peace and justice person. And so we now I have a committee that is very active. And so that’s been, my work has been peacemaking.

Metta Spencer

So you do even when you’re not traveling, you’re a professional peacemaker.

Bob Holmes

It’s true.

Metta Spencer

I can’t think of a better calling. That’s wonderful. Okay, terrific. Now, so you’ve been taking these, these people on excursions? And how long do these things last? And where do you typically go? Is it the same itinerary every year? Or do you vary it greatly?

Bob Holmes

Well, we go for about 15 days. And we do have visited lots of various peacemakers. Some of them are Israeli, some were Palestinian, some are Jewish, Muslim, some Christian. And we just tried to really find out on the ground, what’s happening and to see, learn from the peacemakers over there. They’re kind of our instructors.

Metta Spencer

So it’s not the typical, go look at religious sites, kind of tour that most people take in when they go to Israel, and I guess the whole the whole district, but you’re you’re going to look at particular people and meet particular people who are, who are peace workers in their area. So there must be lots of people that we don’t hear about very much, right. Tell me about some of these folks who are some, some of them I think we’ve actually… in Peace magazine. So sometimes, some of the people who’ve gone with you on these trips, have come back full of stories about wonderful people. And, and I have printed a few of these, these reports, but none from you. So we will get a more direct set of anecdotes about some of the wonderful people working for peace in an area where it must be very, very hard to be a peace worker.

Bob Holmes

So I’d like to just show you some pictures and tell some stories. Is that okay?

Metta Spencer

Yeah!

Bob Holmes

I do take a lot of people over to see what’s happening there. And we do meet with a lot of various peacemakers. As we said, some are Israeli and some are Palestinian, some are Christian, some are Jewish, some Muslim. So I want to introduce you to 4 of them. Okay, the first one I want to use Rabbi Arik Ascherman. And he’s like the prophet Jeremiah. He’s a wonderful Israeli rabbi. And he’s been a peace activist since before I went there 20 years ago, and he’s still going strong. And he’s the one who started rabbis to human rights. And they’ve been very, very, very active. And so I love working with him. I’ve been with him on many of his actions, when I was with CPT there. And I always try to meet with him if we can. About two, four years ago, he started a new group of Jews and Arabs in defense of human rights. And I’m not quite sure how it evolved. But that’s the way it is. And now, I’ll just tell you one story. Every November, they help with the Palestinian farmers who are doing their olive harvest. And the reason they have to come he is he brings a group of people, excuse me, using Israelis and some internationals, and some Palestinian peacemakers, and they accompany the Palestinian farmers. And the reason I have to do it is because they often get attacked by settlers. And a lot of these orchards are close to Israeli settlements. And the settlers don’t want them there. And they want them to go away. And you can’t do much because they’re protected by Israeli soldiers, as you can see in the picture below. And they come on like that, when you can see in the forefront of that first picture.

Metta Spencer

Now this lower, excuse me, this lower photo is the settlers who are being aggressive. Is that right?

Bob Holmes

Yes, it was the soldiers who are protecting them,

Metta Spencer

and that the other guys up at the top? Are they also settlers? Or Who are they?

Bob Holmes

Those are all settlers. Yeah. They’re settlers coming down from the settlement to orchard. And they’re really just trying to chase the Palestinians out of the orchard to get, to stop them from harvesting.

Metta Spencer

If they belong to the Palestinians.

Bob Holmes

Yes, yes. But the thing is, the settlers are already on Palestinian land, but they want to expand their settlements. And to do that, they come down and they try to push the Palestinians out of their orchards. And so they can’t, if they can’t harvest their crops, they can’t make any money, and they’ll be enticed to leave, to go away. And sometimes it can be very dangerous. And as you can see here, that top picture is the rabbi himself being attacked by a settler. And he didn’t stand him. And I said, I asked Arik, I said, Why? How come you didn’t get stabbed? He says, I think God intervened. He touched the conscience of the settler. And I was saved. Wow. And the one below, one time I was working with him, and he said, I know that when the soldiers tell us that we have to leave, and we don’t leave, they’ll be arrested. So I’m gonna leave this time. And so he stood in, he was terrific in terms of being a prophet speaking to the soldiers and to the settlers. And when they was asked to leave, he started to walk away and the Israeli police went after him and dragged him back, as you can see. And he’s, I took this picture, and he’s saying to me, Bob, call my wife.

Metta Spencer

See that knife in the top cop type? guy with a knife is going to stab him in the back. Yeah, it’s amazing, he spoke to him, or how did he…

Bob Holmes

And he says, as he said to me, God must have protected me and touched the heart, the conscience of that settler, at the time. Well, it was amazing. Wow. So he’s, he’s a great peacemaker. He’s still going at it. Every week, he’s out there usually on a Friday. Because when —

Metta Spencer

You say he was ordered by the by the, the military or the police to leave and he left but they chased him or something.

Bob Holmes

They chased after him that day. Yeah. And then you can see them carrying him back.

Metta Spencer

What Why did they want to bring him back —

Bob Holmes

I think it’s because he spoke so strongly. And he really, you know, as, as a prophet, he said, you know, what you’re doing is unjust, it’s wrong, and you shouldn’t be defending these people. And then they decided they’re going to arrest him.

Metta Spencer

They wanted to arrest him, did they? Did they arrest him?

Bob Holmes

Yes, they did.

Metta Spencer

And what did they do with him? After they arrested him?

Bob Holmes

Well, they arrested him and several others, two of our CPTers were arrested. Also, they take them to the nearest… police station, actually. But then they just interview them, record what’s going on, and then they release them. Because they’re not, they weren’t doing anything that’s illegal, really, for an Israeli citizens. And the end, even with the CPTers that were arrested, they were released also.

Metta Spencer

you should tell us a little bit about the CPT. I know just a little bit, but I think our viewers don’t know anything most likely. As a Christian Peacemaker team, you have a number of Americans and Canadians and Europeans, I suppose, who,

Bob Holmes

and Australians and Europeans [I actually said Chinese meaning Taiwan], Taiwan, people from all over the world actually. And our, our way, our purpose is to build partnerships, to transform violence and oppression. That’s how we word it until we work with any group that’s suffering from oppression, and we try to extend with them and non-violently work for justice and peace. And that’s what we do.

Metta Spencer

And so, there’s a lot of presence of the CPT in the Middle East.

Bob Holmes

We were only been in Palestine since 95.

Metta Spencer

Now, what how often are there groups there? And what do they do? Well,

Bob Holmes

We use these… you can serve for three months, if you’re a foreigner, because the that’s the longest visa you can get. And as we enter, we can’t really say we’re going to do peacemaking work. So we have to come in as tourists, we get a tourist visa. And usually we have a team of five or six. But under this pandemic, we have not been able to get into the country. So we actually have Palestinian Muslim peacemakers on our team. And they’ve been carrying on the work without us for the last few months.

Metta Spencer

And there was an incident about, like 15 years ago, where some people were captured and held and someone died, right.

Bob Holmes

Yes, that was in Baghdad in when that happened. Jim Loney here in Toronto was one of the the captains. Okay, let me move on to another story.

Metta Spencer

Sure.

Bob Holmes

Can you see it?

Metta Spencer

Yes, I can Bashir and Eve.

Bob Holmes

Yes, Bashir and Eva are both Students University Students in Beersheva in the Negev. And Bashir is a Bedouin. He’s Palestinian Bedouin. And Eva is a Jewish Israeli. And they work together in a group called the Negev Coexistence Forum. And it’s using Arabs working together in a struggle for equality. And what’s happening there is the — the Bedouins after the after the formation of the State of Israel — they were declared nomads, which meant that they didn’t have any permanent cities or villages. And so all of their villages are unregistered, which means they’re not on the map. It means they don’t get electricity. It means they don’t get water. They don’t get any services, except education, which is demanded by the government. So took us to an unrecognized village called Al Araqib. And here we are. And that’s the shake who’s the head of the village and he’s showing us there. They’ve made a copy of the ownership of that land, because they say these villages around recognize, no, they’re recognized, even back in the time of the Ottomans. And however, he’s telling his story. And others said back in 2000, and they ordered them out of the city over the village, they’re gonna, because you’re unrecognized, your village doesn’t exist. So they came in, and they boasted every house, wow.

Bob Holmes

Oh, boy, right away, and they threw up to light bars and threw tarps over them. And the first time I visited was in a year later. And they told us that we’ve been destroyed, we’ve been bulldozed 26 times in one year, every two weeks. Oh, my God. The last time I was there, it was 170 times. A few. A few weeks ago, it was demolished for the 100 and 84th time. They will not go away. They come back every time. That’s why even Bashir took us there, they wanted us to see the resilience. Whoa, now I get arrested regularly, they get fined. They’ve been in courts trying to fight the fact that they own the land. And they have a right to be there. So it’s ongoing. So they’ve taken us to many other villages, too. But I wanted to show you this one especially

Metta Spencer

That is extraordinary. Where do they live?

Bob Holmes

They live in those shacks like that, they come right back up, set them up again. And it usually only about 10 or 15 people stay. They get support from the others who are elsewhere, because they just want to keep somebody on the land. So the

Metta Spencer

Buildings on the right photo, those structures are the buildings that they’re putting up, return.

Bob Holmes

And they get destroyed every couple of weeks. They come in, they get torn apart.

Metta Spencer

How does somebody support them n helping them do this? I mean, do they somebody must pay for the buildings that they put up? I

Bob Holmes

I think, I think they have a lot of support from the Palestinians, especially the Bedouin community. I know, the Negev Coexistence group are helping them the best they can. There are Israeli activists who are very supportive. And so… internationals are brought there quite often. And so they’re, you know, they’re getting a financial support, but they also need some political support. And that’s, that’s why… they keep going back.

Metta Spencer

Well, what would happen? What do what could happen at the best if they got support? Who would support them? And what? How, what’s the most effective way of giving them help?

Bob Holmes

Well, one of the Palestinian — I should say, one of the Israeli activists — when he brought us there. He said to us, you know, when somebody invades your house, you call the police. This is what, here’s the police that are coming to tear your house down. He says, so, “You now are the protectors of this house. Go back and tell your people in Canada, the United States, tell your governments to put some pressure on the Israelis, to recognize that Bedouins are full citizens and have a right to their villages. They should not be… destroyed?”

Metta Spencer

What do the Israeli officials say in in, in defending their activities? How if some, if the police come and knock it down, and they and they’re asked, on what basis they’re knocking these things down? And who, and these Bedouins obviously are people who’ve lived there? For centuries? Yeah. Well, what do they say about who they are and why they don’t belong there?

Bob Holmes

Well, here’s what they’re doing. They’ve created towns, three or four towns in the northern part of the of the Negev. And they say that’s where you belong. And they try to evict them from their 36 villages, and force them to go to these towns. The trouble with the townships, the towns that they go to, is you can’t bring your sheep. You can’t go all of — in a city, in a town. And so they’re doing what happened here in Canada. When the European colonists came in, you know, they basically pushed the indigenous people off the land into reserves. And that’s what’s happening in the Negev. It’s also what’s happening in the West Bank.

Metta Spencer

Oh, okay. Well, maybe we better look at some pictures of other places.

Bob Holmes

Okay, let me introduce you to Sameehah. She’s a Palestinian, a young woman, teenager. And she’s part of the youth of sumud. And there are a group that gathered in the, in the West Bank, in what we call the South Hebron hills. And they’re very, very active. I’ve known her, believe it or not, since she was a child, because I’ve been going there for 20 years, and she’s probably about 18. Now, and the youth are sumud… means steadfastness. The youth of steadfastness, I would say the youth of persistent resistance, like the veterans, and here’s something they’ve done. This is how it began back in May of 2017. In the village of Sarura it was a small village, and a small number of people living there, maybe 30 or 40 people. And the Israeli army decided that they needed a firing zone. And so they evicted the people from this village and several other villages. And that was maybe 15 years ago. And so they were empty. So what the youth of sumud wanted to do is go back and reoccupy those villages, and live in them again. And on this particular day, all kinds of Palestinians from all over, but lots of Jewish Israelis who were peacemakers, and there was a whole contingent of American Jews who came over and… 200 people, you can see them and they repopulated this village, and they began to renovate it so that it could be relived in again, and as you can imagine, their active resistance had a military response. I love that top picture. There’s a Palestinian woman and a Jewish American woman sitting side by side. And her her banner says this “American Jew supports justice for Palestine, tear down the wall, free all the political prisoners return the stolen land.” And you can see below the response of the army was to come in and tear-gas and chase them out. And they confiscated anything they could find. But when they are, when they have to come back, in over a month’s time, it happened several times they’d be chased out and they’d come back. And I’ve been going there now for a couple years and it’s now a year ago 2019. That’s Sameehah you can see her behind the one of the people there, in another you have someone there leading us to the freedom camp. Now. If you look at that bottom left picture, it’s a cave. And actually the people in this town all lived in caves. And you say, well, that’s really primitive. But no, it isn’t… there. They’re cool in the summer, and they’re warm in the winter.

Metta Spencer

And these are natural caves.

Bob Holmes

They’re natural caves. But if you but the stone inside is soft, so you can go in and hollow it out. And you can create rooms and make the ceiling higher and things like that. So that’s what they did in this cave and look on the right when we visited. This was in 2019. And they really rehabilitated the cave, as you can see, and the original family who owned the cave, have actually come back and taken ownership.

Metta Spencer

Wow, lovely.

Bob Holmes

Yeah, and they don’t, they don’t all come back and live there. But they always try to keep some people there. And the youth is, some would try to always stay there too. And of course, they get raided regularly. A lot of the youths… have been arrested and fined, but they come back… it’s called sumud, it’s called persistent resistance. So this young woman and all the youth that are working with her, and I have to say I’ve known quite a few of them because I’ve we had a team in this town that she’s living in. For years. I was on that team quite often and it’s It’s a real nonviolent resistance to the stealing of the land. It’s power- really powerful.

Metta Spencer

How many caves are there

Bob Holmes

— in that particular village six or seven. And they’ve, they’ve already rehabilitated two of them and they’re working on a third right now I think —

Metta Spencer

And what needs to be done to rehabilitate them?

Bob Holmes

to go in and clean them up, expand them a little bit. With hammer and chisel and that sort of thing. And then put a good door and as you can see, there’s a good door, men put on there. And because they’ve been abandoned now for years, so… oh, it’s good. It’s powerful. Okay, one more story.

Metta Spencer

Okay.

Bob Holmes

Here’s this last story I’ll tell you. There’s so many I could tell but this is a good one. This is Sami Awad. He’s Palestinian. He’s Christian. He lives in Bethlehem. His uncle is Mubarak Awad, who was one of the leaders of the nonviolent first Intifada. And because he also had dual citizenship in the United States, they they deported him and banned them from ever coming back.

Metta Spencer

Sami?

Bob Holmes

no, Mubarak.

Metta Spencer

In the US now he’s a friend of mine. I mean… Mubarak does live in the US and has for years, what happened?

Bob Holmes

He was banned in 2001 or 19–. Oh, whenever the first Intifada was on, I can’t remember. It was probably 1980, 1990. Somewhere in there.

Metta Spencer

You know, I should remember that too, because I was at the United Nations. It was across the street from the United Nations. there’s a there’s a building there [Church House] for a lot of the organizations that are, you know, concerned, charitable organizations. And there was a may have been the Quakers, I’m not sure. And Mubarak had just arrived in, in the US from Israel having been expelled, I believe from Israel. That’s right. And he gave a talk and I went to the first talk that he gave.

Bob Holmes

I’ve met him once to the gathering where they were peacemakers we’re having a conference. He wouldn’t remember me. I don’t think so.

Metta Spencer

So somehow, I don’t remember the story of how he got back in. And, in fact, I didn’t remember that he’d been excluded from the US. But I know that his education, he was educated at a, I believe a Christian College someplace in the middle Midwest, in the US, and, and it brought his training in nonviolence. And he was a psychologist who was doing kind of therapy in with the Palestinians, until he realized what what they needed wasn’t therapy. It was political support, you know, he began to, he organized… that Intifada was largely his doing that very nonviolent intifada. It was one of the stories of the things they did the in, inventiveness of how to persist in and organize the community in the face of oppression. It was one of the inspiring stories that I remember hearing.

Bob Holmes

Yeah, beautiful. Well, I’m sure he inspired his nephew, Sami, because he founded Holy Land Trust. And I asked him, Sami, what, what do you call it? Holy Land Trust, he says, because that’s what’s missing. There’s no trust here, between the people. So that’s his work. So we worked with him, CPT worked with them all the time, we did a lot of nonviolence trainings at Bethlehem university with him and with other groups. And we did a lot of very — every Friday, he would take a group out and they would stand, trying to stop the wall being created in in round Bethlehem. But what I want to talk to you about today is this last thing he’s been doing recently, and he calls this “sharing victim narratives and then moving beyond”. And here he’s talking to a group here, I’m in the group and our group is also Jewish people in that group from the States in there, as well — explaining it to us. And he said that, you know, if we can get the Israelis and the Palestinians to, to recognize and acknowledge each other’s suffering and trauma, then we can move beyond it. So he himself Sami, went to Auschwitz for a week. He was there every day. And he saw the young people coming down from Israel. When you graduate from high school with a team, you’re immediately conscripted into the army. So they bring them down. And he’d watched them go in, and they were full of energy and lots of fun and things. And they came out in tears, and sad, and, and then he said, the leaders would sit them down. And he’d say, Now, you know. Now you know why. You have to be armed. Why do we have to have, every one of you has to be a soldier. Because never again must this happened to us. And so we began to realize how the Israelis are internalizing the trauma, and how it explained a lot of their reactions to what was going on. So he wanted to find an Israeli leader, not not one that he already knew who already was a peacemaker, but one who was kind of a rabid settler, but find a way to get someone who could then understand the same trauma that the Palestinians has suffered. And so he was recommended to talk to Rabbi Hanan Schlesinger. I’ve never met him, but he told us the story. And he’s a settler. And he’s rabid. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool settler believes everything about being a settler. So he agreed to meet with him in Jerusalem in a coffee shop. And, and Sammy said, no, I didn’t know how to start the conversation, he says, but it didn’t matter. Because as soon as Rabbi Hanan sat down, he says: “1948, the founding of Israel was a miracle. And 1967 when we took over the West Bank and Gaza, that was the completion of the miracle, in general, but the promise of the land to the Jewish people is eternal.” And Sami said, it’s hard to find peace, oh, my God, where are we going to go? But then he said, “We have a covenant with God, that we are to be a light to all the nations. And then he said, especially the Palestinians, because they’re our nearest neighbor. And he was quite willing to understand the trauma of the Palestinians, the nakba, being kicked out of Israel, three quarters of a million, and then taking in the military occupation of Gaza, and West Bank, which has gone over for 15 years now. And so the two of them were able to get together. And to realize that you have to let go of the trauma narratives, both groups, and come up with a new narrative of living together in peace. Wow. And so they began to talk and they began to get groups together. So I haven’t been able to get back there in the last year or two. I don’t know how it’s going but powerful, powerful peacemakers.

Metta Spencer

Wow, well nigh word. I immediately want to explore the thinking of this man, Hanan Schlesinger.

Bob Holmes

You could Google him and you might be able to find some things.

Metta Spencer

Well, how does he combine these various ideas? If if 1948 was a miracle for him? It wasn’t a miracle for the Palestinians, it wasn’t — nakba — was a disaster. Exactly. So, how does he put those two concepts together? If it was a miracle, why why in In what way? Is he to be a light to all nations? How What does he want to have happen to the Palestinians? I mean — it’s like a complete contradiction in terms. You know, the two ideas are totally contradictory, I would think.

Bob Holmes

I don’t know because I haven’t talked to Hanan and I’ve only talked to Sami Awad. So I don’t know the other side of the story. But the fact that Sami is able to keep meeting with him, and in the end to develop a new narrative and go from here, and you know, Jonathan Kuttab and Jeff Halper, have both written books on, you know, a one-state solution of coming together to live together where everybody is equal, equal rights and equal justice and peace. So I think something will happen. I don’t know if many of you and I will live to see it. But you know, I think that’s the future.

Metta Spencer

Wow, well, this is something that I’d like to explore further, maybe I will have a chance somewhere in one way or another to do that. Maybe I could even reach out to some of these people and talk to them by zoom…sure, let’s see if I could set something up. And that’s certainly something to look forward to. Beautiful. So maybe with your help, I can do that.

Bob Holmes

contact, contact with all of them. I’ve never, I’ve never been in contact with Rabbi Schlesinger, he’s the only one I’ve shown you today that I haven’t had contact with.

Metta Spencer

Well, I would go through somebody else anyway, wouldn’t immediately go to him and say, how can you hold those two ideas? When they’re coming — I would, I would do a little preparation before doing that. So this is a wonderful introduction to the region. I’ve never been to Israel or Palestine. Of course, I’ve traveled pretty widely, but frankly, I never wanted to go there. I just, you know, it was I don’t like to go to a place where I think I’m not going to like the people. You know, and I think I have such strong feelings that there’s that there’s a huge injustice going on there. And I don’t know how I could even you know, hold my tongue, I would have too many opinions. I’ve never gone. I’ve never gone because I know, I may make more trouble than I would solve.

Bob Holmes

Well, if you came on our pilgrimage, you discover that the people we meet with are peacemakers and who are nonviolent, there are lots of people who are not nonviolent. And like Sami Awad has told us that there are Palestinians who won’t talk to him because he’s a sellout [for] talking to the Israelis. And when you talk to them, I’m sure when you talk to Hanan Schlesinger, he’s got all kinds of settlers saying “Why are you talking to those terrorists?” You know, so I mean, it’s, they have hard work, hard work to do.

Metta Spencer

I want to thank you for this and have a chance to, to look at the new full screen. This has been fun. You know, you have to be careful about using that word fun, because there’s certainly, it’s fun talking with you. But it’s very sobering to see the kinds of situations that you’re dealing with. And I want to express my gratitude to you for being able to go into a place and entertain people and to expose people who aren’t familiar with that situation. So bless you. Thank you so much.

Bob Holmes

Thank you very much. And thanks for giving me a chance to speak.

Metta Spencer

Okay, it’s been wonderful and I hope we have more contact. Maybe when the pandemic is over, we will find ourselves in the same room. I would bet anything that we have been in the same room dozens of times, at least over the years without ever actually having anybody point to you and say that’s

Bob Holmes

probably true.

Metta Spencer

Okay, thank you and have a great day. You’re very welcome.

Bob Holmes

Thank you very much.

T174. Life in Rural China

Posted on February 25, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T176. Peacemakers in the Holy Land

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 174
Panelists: Ellen Judd
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 29 January 2021
Date Transcribed: 15 February 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer, let’s go to China. So we go to China today, this is going to be easy, because I get to sit at my computer and have a wonderful excursion, led by a professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba, a woman who has spent a good part of her life doing research in the rural areas of China. This is Ellen Judd. Hello, Ellen, how are you? I’m fine. How are you? Wonderful. All right. So we’re, I know that you can’t go to China these days. So but… you seem to be sending your graduate students abroad. Is that… something that’s working?

Ellen Judd

Well, and they’re coming here so that that’s just the way in which teaching is going these days? But yes, things have been closed down a little bit. So I hope to get back to China later this year.

Metta Spencer

Good. I’ve been to China, but I don’t know where I was. Where were you most of the time, or did you hop around?

Ellen Judd

I went to a fair number of different places. I started out as a graduate student in China and in Beijingand Shanghai. And then I did a lot of spend a lot of time in Shandong, and then later in Sichuan — Chongqing, in the southwest of China, looking at the places that had sent migrants to the cities, and then I went to the cities, where they’ve gone to Guangzhou and Chongqing. And I’ve been to other places, but those are probably the locations where I’ve spent most time.

Metta Spencer

Okay… I was there in 1980. That’s the only time I’ve ever been to China, for a couple of weeks. It was at a time when it was really — we were a novelty. I mean, I remember being in a bus and these people would come in, they put their noses up against the glass, and look at us, as if we were really quite remarkable things. But that must not have lasted very long. But I imagined you you sort of put roots down, right?

Ellen Judd

Yes, I sort of have friends. And it’s been a large part of my life from from my early 20s. Until now.

Metta Spencer

So you have a lot of friends in China and you speak — what do you speak? I mean, I have

Ellen Judd

I speak Mandarin Chinese. And that’s… Yes. That’s usually what we call it in Canada. In China, they just call it the standard language. It’s the language of the North China plain. So it’s widely spoken across northern China and, and down into Sichuan Chongqing too, with regional variations. And then it’s taught in schools everywhere. So one can go lots of places with it. And I can understand some of the local dialects, but it’s a bit as if, when one goes to Yorkshire, one listens to how people speak. But when someone speaks, whatever version of English they speak — so what I speak is Mandarin, but I can get around.

Metta Spencer

Well, I presume that everybody in China, all the students must learn what you call standard Chinese. Right? Yeah, it’s just even if they have a local language, they also would learn the basic Mandarin. Yes, yeah. Okay. Well, that makes sense. Right, I was just reading something today about the fact that the there’s more effort to standardize education in some of the peripheral regions of China. And I, I could sort of understand why that might be helpful. But, you know, there’s always a controversy about how much to do, even within Canada, how much one should do in local or ethnic languages and so on. I think in the years past, there were a lot more Saturday schools and things like Ukrainian and stuff in Canada than there is now. So I imagine that we’re becoming more standardized in French and English. Do you think or not? Yes, I think people like to speak their own language. And certainly there’s lots of pushback in China and certainly people who speak a very different language than the minority nationalities want to keep their own language.

Ellen Judd

So that happens and even in localities, there are lots of people just want to speak their own version of Chinese — it’s sort of, it’s what feels comfortable and anything else is uppity and and they don’t want to do it. But it is important in terms of their mobility and so on to also have that ability.

Metta Spencer

Right. Okay, now you I’m impressed with your green screen, which, by the way looks like the real thing. I mean, a lot of times when people use green screens, if they move the funny looking space behind them, but you have a remarkable green screen, obviously, of China, can you can you tell us what we’re seeing in the background?

Ellen Judd

Right, this is a school that’s under construction outside a township in Sichuan, where I was, where I spent a while. And I think it’s, I thought it was nice, and it’s one I use in my classes, because it shows a little bit of the countryside. And it also hints at all the transformations that are underway as people are going to school and preparing themselves for life anywhere. And also, especially in the cities, because there’s this huge movement of people from the countryside, to the cities, that’s fueling China’s rise in the world. So it’s sort of a an optimistic, an important part of what’s happening in China. Yeah, in fact, I, I would imagine that the Chinese modernization or I don’t know, industrialization, or whatever you want to call it. The development of China in the last 30 years, must be one of the most extraordinary rapid changes social changes in the world history. I mean, they have done something spectacular with their economic development. And I’ve yet to see, you know, any of China. But that’s what I hope you’ll tell us more about the move from I think, in most cases, it’s an urbanization move, right? A lot of people in the countryside, move to the cities and take jobs in industry, is that what the basic dynamic of the thing it’s part of what’s happening. So I think that one of the important things about the the Chinese economy and society is that it’s, in a sense bifurcated between the urban worlds and the rural worlds. And to some extent, people are having entitlements and are registered as living in one or the other. And there’s this incredibly modern, fast paced world of the major cities and urban China. That is amazing, the world. And it’s probably all — it’s been a huge cultural center, you know, for 1000s of years anyway. But it is amazing right now in the in these places. And then there is where most of the people in China live, which has been in the countryside, but is increasingly being urbanized. But one of the things that has been happening is that China has that modern industrial economy that’s been developing through the 20th century and into this century. But when it did this opening up since the 1990s, it also became a place to which countries like the United States put out some of their work. So there’s a sense in which China is also a very large Export Processing Zone. So we have these

Metta Spencer

I’m sorry, are you saying that even in the countryside, there’s there are… industrial cities going in for export, or just in the cities…

Ellen Judd

There had been a period in the 1980s, when some of it was in the countryside. But what’s happened since the 1990s, is that that’s been developing more in the cities and the coastal regions, but people who are still considered to be part of the rural population and have a foot in — largely their families in the countryside — in the cities. So something like 250 million rural people are in the cities working in temporarily, but still with ties to the countryside, but they’re in the cities, doing this, making all these things that we buy in all our shops, right. So in a sense that these rural people are one of the motors of Chinese development. And I think some of the time, when we look at what China’s doing, we don’t quite see all of the people who are doing the work. And it is people from the countryside who were going to the cities that are one of the engines of, of China’s economic miracle, they don’t do it by themselves. The secret is, you know, the hinge between the the urban and the rural economies, and the ability of them to work together to transform the Chinese economy.

Metta Spencer

So you specialize more in talking to villagers, right. And people live, rural people don’t live scattered around, they live in villages, mostly right?

Ellen Judd

It depends upon the the region of China, sometimes it’s in nucleated villages. And sometimes it’s a bit more spread out. It’s partly a geographical and regional difference. So you find both. Some of the reality right now is how mobile the rural population is, and how much of it is… partly in the cities. I went to to rural China, I’ve been a student in China, in the 1970s, and I wanted to be able to see the countryside. So when it became possible for international researchers to get to the countryside in the 1980s, that’s what I wanted to do, because it seemed not visible at that time to the outside world. And it’s where most people were, and and so the majority of the Chinese people have a rural designation. So it seemed to me that to understand what was going on in China, this is sort of key to life in China, and at present, you know, people don’t necessarily see it when they traveled to China, but it is… life for a very large portion of, of the Chinese people. So I wanted to see that. So that’s what I did, but it’s not I certainly spend time with colleagues in universities and spend time in the cities as well.

Metta Spencer

So you, you visit universities, what what is it? Do you teach there? Do you hang out in research institutes? Or what what do you do in universities?

Ellen Judd

My research in the countryside is sometimes done in collaboration with people in in universities. So I I’ve given some lectures there, but I haven’t gone to teach, [as] in Canada.

Metta Spencer

Mm hmm. Well, I have heard that and and maybe you can elaborate on whether it’s true that there’s a lot of democratization going on, but it’s it is locally, it is usually in a local sense, that that people in villages have quite a lot of opportunity to make decisions locally. Is that Is that a fair statement? Or would it or not?

Ellen Judd

There’s a tension in that sense in which there there is a strong central government, but there are also local structures, and they’re one of the standard sayings in China is, you know, there’s policy from above, and there’s opposition from below. So, you know, to some extent, what, what people do is they do have some structures for managing their own affairs in communities. But it’s not without paying attention to what national policy is. So there’s a dynamic there that is not structured the same as it is here. But but it is there. And compared with when I first went to China, I would say there’s probably more sphere for people to make individual decisions about where they will go. And it’s sort of a transformation from the situation in which it was more equal. And everybody got those full employment and everybody got a job, but they got assigned one, now it is not so equal. And people have to go out and find their own work, but they get a bit more choice about what they do. And that has an upside and a downside to it as well.

Metta Spencer

I don’t know any foreign language, even French. But I wish I could understand enough of a language to just sit in a coffee shop in you know, some, some little town and listen to what people talk about. So I you know, do you ever write papers about what people are interested in or what they talk about in in everyday life in their social gatherings or so on…? What is life like, from the perspective of people living in a, one of the villages that you’ve, that you’ve studied?

Ellen Judd

…very largely about family. And so what people are dealing with their relationships with other people and their obligations and how they’re caring for their children and their elders and the work that they are doing in order to make their community work. And this life in the countryside, to a large extent, outside the suburban areas is still very hard and demanding, people are tend to be working very hard. And they also have considerable care obligations for for both children and elders, the people of working age are going to the cities, and the countryside has become a place of giving and receiving care in some ways. So there’s a great deal of concern about… how one manages all of these conflicting needs to be working and to be caring for people at the same time.

Metta Spencer

Yeah, well, that’s another thing that I’ve heard a lot about. And maybe, maybe it’s an exaggerated story, I don’t know that so many of the urban people are, are married couples, or at any rate family people who leave their children behind with their parents in the, in the village while they go off and live in the city, and then come home when they can for vacation or to stay in touch. How that’s maybe a stereotype? I don’t know. Is that a predominant pattern? Or is it… does it mean that there’s not enough housing or childcare facilities or things like that for, for them to bring their their children with them?

Ellen Judd

It’s not what one would say was, is a preference. It’s something that people more or less have to do in for at least a portion of their their life, because they can’t very well — it’s difficult for many of the rural people to be able to have a sufficient income and to be able to support their children and work full time in the city– it’s just sort of not manageable. And to some extent, even in the countryside, young people would be working well, grandmothers, and to some extent, grandfathers were also caring for their children during the day. So young people are key to the workforce. The problem with this, this model that’s existed for a while, is that people sometimes have to be more separated from their elders and generationally than in the past, when you can work in in your own grow… community. So in order to care well, for their families, people sometimes have to be separated from from some of their, from their parents and their children for a while, and people have certainly tried very hard to take [children] to the cities when they can. That’s difficult, but one of the transitions that China is working on is to urbanize so that more people are absorbed permanently into the urban workforce, and they can bring their families and they can settle permanently in cities to a greater degree. So that kind of… disruption of family life in order to work can be reduced. And and that’sa process that’s going to take a little while to make work. But there, there’s a sense in which some people are able, then to settle in the cities in a more more settled way. And that will be an important transition. And it’s happened to many other parts of the world that people first of all move temporarily to the cities, and then they become urbanized.

Metta Spencer

But you kind of confirm the impression that I’ve got from general press that this is a very widespread thing now, but that they’re trying to get past it, right. What would they be building apartments or housing for people in, in the cities that would be adequate for family life? Is that the goal or…

Ellen Judd

Increasingly, but it’s for the temporary workers. It’s not great. But yes, there is that kind of transition to a better way of life. And I think that’s one of the things that I think we sometimes don’t necessarily see in terms of contemporary press coverage about China the extent to which China’s economic and political life is driven by an internal imperative to make all of this possible for hundreds of millions of people. So basically, you have to be able to establish all that infrastructure. it’s the product of incredibly hard work, and also trying to manage the economy in such a way that it can sustain that level of growth, and build that infrastructure for people.

Metta Spencer

Well, yeah, now you tell me what, what kinds of articles you’ve written?

Ellen Judd

Well, it’s been a long period with different kinds of research, I started out studying the Cultural Revolution. But then, and I’ve studied, popular performing arts and so on. But as in the countryside, I spent a lot of time looking at the transformation of the rural economy, and how family life and gender relations have been changed. Because some of the time from a distance everything seems about political economy, but as people live it on the ground, it often turns out to be about how they manage their their family life and their household relations. So I did quite a bit of that. And then I looked at how the women’s movement responded to that, and looked at sort of indigenous ideas of the transformation of women’s roles in the economy and, and recognition of, of women’s contributions. Later on, I looked more at… migration, and at the restoration of social programs, in particular, health care in the countryside. Some of that had been dismantled, as in the rural economic reform. That happened, we sometimes call it decollectivization — in China, it was a rural economic reform, and to some extent, social programs were lost when collectives were transformed into local government. And then there’s been a rebuilding of what we would call social programs in China, health care, and pensions and so on, for the last 15 years or so, in the countryside. And so I looked at the re-emergence of the Rural Health Care Program, and then patterns of helping

Metta Spencer

health care programs did you say

Ellen Judd

yes, yes. Okay, and looking at how people manage their health care needs in terms of accessing public… familial… and private resources. So from a from a problem-solving kind of approach, in the countryside and, and for migrants, what I’m trying to get at, is looking at it from the point of view of how it’s lived on the ground. So that’s what I do professionally.

Metta Spencer

Okay. I’m interested in two of the things that you’ve mentioned. One is, what have the changes been in gender relations? And have you been able to see it over a period of time? And can you can you make any sweeping generalizations about how that has gone? And then I’d be interested in more also, the changing healthcare system, if that you’ve mentioned, I remember hearing back in the day when, you know, they were talking about barefoot doctors. And I’ve also had friends who’ve studied Chinese traditional medicine here, as if this is a good way of amplifying what they do. And it’s made me wonder, in fact, I went to China, I’ve gone to three Chinese doctors just for fun more than anything else. But, you know, I’m I’m not sure how much traditional Chinese medicine is, is still a part of the everyday practice of healthcare, in village life. Those are big questions… you can pick either one, gender or health.

Ellen Judd

Okay. So I’ll talk a bit more about gender. But I would say certainly traditional Chinese medicine is still used and and promoted, and the two tracks, and then they’re both and sometimes they’re combined. So all of that sort of flourishing. gender relations has changed a great deal. I think it’s one of the things that’s been quite transformed. A great many more opportunities are open to women than there had been in the past, transformation and access to education in the countryside in particular, that happened earlier in the cities and somewhat later in the countryside. Women are a very active part of, a part of the economy. They’re certainly not, you know, I think we used to have ideas, that they’d been left behind in the countryside. And they’re certainly not, they’re also moving and the ability to move and work in the cities gives a degree of enhanced opportunity and freedom. But they nevertheless, you’ll have extraordinary demands and obligations on them as well that that are not equal —

Metta Spencer

Gender is no nowhere equal yet, may be Scandinavia. But you know, if you were doing a cross, international comparison of progress towards gender equality, how would you say China stacks up in terms of, for example, the role of women in industry or in leadership roles, or government and so on?

Ellen Judd

I think the striking thing in China is that the the pace of change is extraordinarily rapid. But we don’t find large numbers of women at the highest levels of the political system. But as you say, these are problems that exist everywhere. So I think that —

Metta Spencer

Does anybody know whether anybody’s done an international comparison of gender advancement or feminist advancement?

Ellen Judd

I’m not aware of it but then I don’t specialize in feminism. So I don’t know. I think that there are people who have looked at that. And at one point when the Chinese women are also particularly the Chinese women’s movement, I could see efforts being made particularly to put women into positions of greater responsibility. And it was a very interesting program that the Women’s Federations at that time were developing, that were very intentional about linking women who were more professionally placed and educated, and linking them with women with less advantage, to build patterns of mentorship and cooperation. And we find that more widely in the world now as well. So I think that the pace of change is very fast, there are people who’ve done those comparative studies of women moving into elite positions. It’s not what I’ve done in particular…Yeah, but but it does, it does exist. And I think the world is improving on this, but still has a long way to go.

Metta Spencer

Okay, now, let’s turn to health. Well, if you have a choice, would you have would you choose to go to a Chinese traditional doctor or a modern hospital for whatever you’re likely to come down with in in your travels in China? Where would you rather go —

Ellen Judd

I use both. Yes, I mean, a lot of the time what happens, what’s happening with traditional Chinese medicine is it’s the use of herbal treatments that later have been adopted in pharmaceutical treatments in the West. So it’s, it’s perfectly legitimate, you may have to take — It’s not as refined as it is in tablets, but it’s quite effective for colds and various other treatments. And that’s just fine. It depends on what ails you. But some of the time, I’ll admit that I have a lot of respect for biomedicine… when really sick to go for that. But what I’ve been looking at mainly is the effort to increase people’s access to any form of health care. And because that is so critical to people’s well being. And that I think has been something that’s been really important to see.

Metta Spencer

So that we’re emphasizing or, you know, I guess I’m interested in this comparison of if the average person in a village, do they care what kind of healthcare they get, modern or traditional. And, and how do they think about this? Is it Are they is there really a lot of improvement in access to treatment? And and are they blending the two, are they mixing them? Or do you find doctors that specialize in one and the other but but have no contact with people in the other branch of medicine.

Ellen Judd

There are somewhat separate streams for training people in one or the other. But a lot of practitioners are able to use both. And so that from an ordinary person’s point of view, you can choose one or the other in the countryside, where you may have a smaller number of practitioners available, sometimes they’re able to do both to some degree. But but they are separate specialized streams and people have access to, to both. I think the the big issue is being able to ensure that people do have access. And that has been, I think, really important, because I don’t think there’s a place where access to health care is not important. So basically, being able to recreate a structure that improves people’s access to health care, I think is one of the important things that China’s managed to recreate. So at present, there’s a structure for this that ideally reaches everybody. It’s still underfunded, which is one of the reasons why China’s pushes constantly for more economic development. So there’s a structure there, that still needs to be more fully funded. But there’s… efforts to to recreate that a bit, underway for… a time, when we’re trying to talk about post-neoliberalism which one hardly hears anymore, but there had been a moment before the economic crisis in 2008, where we were talking about that in the recreation of social programs throughout the world — and some places, it’s been hard to sustain. And it’s certainly been a struggle to create in China, but there’s been a determination also to go ahead with that, with the healthcare system, and with the creation of income support for elderly people in the countryside, to some health care, and pensions are being recreated. That this there’s still a lot of inequality, but there’s work on this…

Metta Spencer

you know, in in the world now, one of the things that interests me most because I’m a political sociologist, is, is the rise of course of populism, and, and the all of these movements such as Trump in the US and … in other countries, Bolsonaro you know, you name it. And even Modi in India and so on — cleavage between rural culture and urban culture. You know, we have a real war practically going on between educated elites, in cities … in the knowledge industries and so on. And the traditional people who want to stabilize life by going backward, I found in the US that the biggest gap in voting for Trump or Biden was the gap between rural and urban residents. So that we have all these people wanting, you know, everything, opposition to abortion, right to carry guns, opposition to gay, gay marriage, or gay partnerships, and so on. And, and, and so, I see a huge cultural split in, between rural and urban. And what I’m wondering is, how much of that is similar to the case in China?

Ellen Judd

There is a similar divide. But I don’t think it gets in, the sense of there’s a rural-urban distinction. But I don’t think it’s elaborated in quite the same way, the way in which a preoccupation in China is very largely in terms of inequality and/or disparity. So that there’s a sense that life is improving very much more in the cities — not for everybody in the cities. there’s also people who’ve been laid off from failing enterprises and so on that there, there are certainly problems for some people in cities. But there’s a sense in which there’s enormous inequality in China and there’s this sense on the part of many people even privileged people in the cities, to be rather uncomfortable about the disparity and the situation that they know exists in remote rural areas. So there’s a sense that it probably comes out of this… more the socialist past in in China, which I think is how a lot of people in China would also think of it except nobody should necessarily say so at present, but there’s a sense in which things have become — the disparities have widened during this period of rapid economic growth, and greater engagement with the global capitalist economy, so that some people are doing very well and other people aren’t. So it’s this huge disparity that is felt on both sides. And there’s a sense that this is somehow not right. But nevertheless, it is. It is part of the structure. And the overall thrust has been that if China is able to economically improve its situation rapidly enough, this can be shrunk, or conditions can be approved for a larger number of people. And to some extent, you know, from… 1996, to 2010, there was sustained 10% growth in GDP. And so people did experience an enormous increase in their standard of living. And it’s still one of the issues in China in the past year, for example, is China’s seen to be such a force in the global economy. At the same time, the Premier was saying that their goal, by the end of last year was to raise 600 million people out of poverty. And looking at the standard of 1000 renminbi a month income, which is about five US dollars per capita, per day, they were trying to get, they still had that as a challenge before [COVID]. And to some extent, they felt they were on track to meet it until the COVID thing happened, but they still felt they’d gotten somewhere by the end of last year to do to meet ths goal. So in many ways, the issue is the enormous inequality between these two worlds. So there’s this enormous wealth, and then there are still people who are having to go to the cities under difficult circumstances and increasingly informal economy, and people in the countryside who are dependent on somebody else making that kind of move in order to send funds home to them to sustain life.

Metta Spencer

That’s true. I’m glad you mentioned the fact that there’s a socialist background, because maybe that explains quite a bit. You know, I’m thinking of the people you know, the the basic value that leftism promotes is aegalitarianism, you know, that that is what leftism is all about, I would say, it isn’t necessarily achieved, but it certainly is considered a very high priority, and every kind of left wing government, socialist government, and so on. And and I think, in capitalist societies, and Canada and the US and Britain and so on, I don’t think there’s ever been the sense of what you say, shame or the feeling that there’s something really wrong with having a lot of economic inequality. I don’t think most American voters are convinced that greater equality is the most important thing to be pursued. But I do see I do remember seeing it so much in Russia when I was going to Russia quite quite a lot in the 80s. And, and it it was very important then, and I think it’s not even as much the case in Russia now, I think that equality is not something that is so much a highly prized value as it used to be. And but if people in formerly socialist societies, I just wonder it’d be interesting to see whether that value still has a strong appeal to, to I don’t even know whether to call… China, a communist society, would you call it a communist country? They call themselves communist, but they don’t look like any communist I ever saw. And they look like capitalists that are beating us hands down with, you know, playing a much better game of capitalism than we are. So is that reflected in a change in in the value system that it’s okay to make more money than your next door neighbor, and be competitive and all of that. I’m asking a lot of silly questions that are all piled in together. But there’s some common thread about this transition from… communism to capitalism, or maybe they don’t think that’s what they’re doing.

Ellen Judd

Those are a lot of really important big questions.

Metta Spencer

Sorry. I shouldn’t dump that on you, too, as we’re getting toward the end of our conversation, but, but those are the, to my mind the questions I’d like to explore if I were in your shoes.

Ellen Judd

And I certainly spend a lot of time thinking about them. If I do this other research, it’s because I’m wanting to make it on the ground and concrete with real people. And sort of the the summary statement probably about, you know, if we want the aspirational goal of, of the People’s Republic, would be that simple phrase from Mo Zedong, “serve the people”. And that, in a sense, would get past some some some of the finer ideological or political points, if you think of it in those in those terms. So certainly on the official position in the United States and China, interestingly, the governments of the two countries are sort of agreed that China’s a socialist county, but you know, for quite a long time, you know, Chinese people haven’t, you know, since the 80s, they sort of suggested that they didn’t think they quite had socialism anymore —

Metta Spencer

They would tell you that they don’t see it as a socialist country is that it?

Ellen Judd

Even in the countryside they would tell me that because they thought it was being dismantled in the new economic reform —

Metta Spencer

And does that bother them? Did it did did they say, oh, shoot, we’re losing socialism, or goody goody, we’re losing socialism.

Ellen Judd

I think they had mixed feelings about it. To some extent, there’s greater opportunity and well being, but then they lost some of their social supports. In any event, they would just sort of comment on it, because everybody in China has been through political study, right. So all these categories are available to people in in different ways. And they comment on them and think about them. What’s been distinctive in or one of the things that’s been distinctive in the recent period, is that Xi Jinping is very determined to put to make China into his idea of a socialist country. And and that has… certainly included a great strengthening of the role of the party and of state owned enterprises and of end of the role of the government. And and certainly claims that China is leading the way to socialism in the world at present. And there’s a strong argument that China is making to this effect, but nevertheless, it’s still quite involved in the global capitalist system. So this is a very difficult thing to analyze… and using labels like socialism and capitalism is really complicated, because sorting out just exactly how you want to think about China in that sense, in the view of, of many people studying China, I think you could look upon China as perhaps part of the capitalist world system, but having taken a different route to get there, where it’s been really important that it has been through what was more clearly a socialist experience in the in the 50s 60s, into the 70s. And then that consciousness is still there, and it’s alive and well in the thoughts of young people who are voluntarily going into the, the informal, the unofficial labor movement in China. So these are deas are alive and well in China, and they’re promoted in certain ways… by the government of China as well, but then it’s also part of the global economy. So and labor power is a commodity, and so on. So you’re basically there are, it’s it’s really complicated to, to conceptualize, but you have elements that we would recognize as both socialist and capitalist in China at present in a, in a complex way —

Metta Spencer

You know, comparing Xi with Putin, because from what you’ve said, it sounds as if Xi would claim that he’s aiming toward a better socialist society. I don’t think Putin would ever use the word socialist as an aspiration for his politics. I don’t know whether he’d like to call himself a capitalist either. I don’t know what they say. But certainly, I think the, the role of well, there’s no role for a communist, the Communist Party in Russia, but there certainly is a role for the Communist Party of China. And they must have an identity as to whether or not they’re more socialist or capitalist.

Ellen Judd

There was a time when I was looking comparatively at other post-socialist societies in the 1980s and 90s. And I looked at the Eastern Bloc a little bit more. So I can’t say that I know very much about Russia. In China, I would say that Xi Jinping, I think, is certainly trying to create his version of socialism. I think there’s a commitment to that. And he does, you know, his father was a leading figure in the Revolution as well. And he’s supported by that generation of the children of the people who were decisive in in that era. So he, he comes out of that background, but it isn’t quite the same. So I guess there’s a question of, you know, just how one’s going to conceptualize this other the path that China is on right now.

Metta Spencer

And when you take your next trip, I will get back in and have another conversation about what surprised you. Very nice to talk to you. All right, here, and we’ll be back in touch. Thank you. Bye.

T168. Nuclear Waste and Indigenous Land

Posted on February 25, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T168. Nuclear Waste and Indigenous Land

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 168
Panelists: Lorraine Rekmans
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 21 January 2021
Date Transcribed: 15 February 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer, what do you think we ought to do with all that nuclear waste that’s being generated by nuclear power plants. If you live in Ontario and some other parts of Canada, you’re, you’re probably aware of the fact that Canadians have more than our share of nuclear power plants. And these things generate a huge amount of radioactive material, which is harmful, to put it mildly. So today, we’re going to talk about that with a lady from the indigenous community. Lorraine Rekmans, and she and I have just met, although I’ve heard of her before, and she’s going to bring me up to date, because I haven’t followed all the details of the negotiations and things that are going on about the disposal of nuclear waste. Good morning, Lorraine.

Lorraine Rekmans

Good morning, Metta. Thank you for inviting me,

Metta Spencer

it’s going to be an important conversation, because whether or not we know about nuclear waste, we’re all in danger of being exposed to some of it. And the question is what to do with it. So I know that you are part of at least one of the organizations that have been meeting to address the question, or maybe the right word is to fight the issue. Yeah.

Lorraine Rekmans

Well, let me talk a little bit about where I come from. I mean, I’m a band member of Serpent River First Nation. And I grew up in Elliott, Lake Ontario, which was home to the, you know, one of the world’s largest uranium mines. So they operated from the mid 1950s. Until the 1990s. And my background is working… as a journalist in the late 80s, early 90s. And I covered a lot of the environmental issues. So the mine, there were a number of mines that were licensed to operate in Elliott Lake, and they closed in the 90s. And when they closed, the federal government ordered environmental assessment, to decommission the mine, because there was 150 million tons of radioactive waste that had been dumped into nearby lakes. So they were called, they were called waste management areas. But the practice is to mine the uranium, extract the ore from the rock with sulfuric acid, and then dump the tailings into nearby lakes.

Metta Spencer

Is that still being done?

Lorraine Rekmans

That was that’s the practice. That’s how tailings are, Metta.

Metta Spencer

Right now still.

Lorraine Rekmans

Well the mines are closed now — not mines that are operating in Saskatchewan. I’m really not familiar with their operation, but mine. That’s how mine tailings are treated. So they’re contained. They call them natural containment areas. There’s all kinds of fancy names for them. But primarily in the beginning, they were lakes. So Elliott Lake,

Metta Spencer

totally immediate, I assume it would completely contaminate the water in the lakes. So you can never use the water.

Lorraine Rekmans

Well, it actually displaced it. I mean, those lakes were filled. So you can imagine, I’ll show you I have an image from the book…This is My Homeland. Uh huh. So I was a co-editor of… this book with Anabel Dwyer, who works for I think the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear [Arms]… B

Metta Spencer

I’m interested. What I’m seeing, this… yellow, it’s the lake that’s been filled in?

Lorraine Rekmans

That’s right. That’s the lake that’s been filled in with nuclear waste. So those It looks like a fine powder, it almost looks like desert sand. So anyway, the solution at Elliott Lake to contain those tailings was basically to flood it and keep it under a water cover. And that was sanctioned by the federal government in the environmental assessment. So you can see the effluent, you see the picture here with the effluent running out.

Metta Spencer

Is that the orange stuff…?

Lorraine Rekmans

Yeah, so it’s oxidizing. That’s why it’s orange because of the sulfuric acid… Elliott Lake is home to the largest nuclear mine tailings dump in the country. And the stuff is contained by, I think there are 76 dams holding this stuff back and it’s just north of Lake Huron. So if you go to a map and you look for Elliott Lake, you’ll see where the you know where the area is, and it dumps into the Serpent River watershed and makes its way into Lake Huron. So in the 1980s, the International Joint Commission on Great Lakes water quality, noted that Elliott lake was a primary source of nuclear contamination in the Great Lakes area. And they were monitoring it in the 80s. They were monitoring for radioactive material in Lake Huron, but but this impacts all… So the issue, of course, is an environmental concern. But it also impacts on the treaty territory of the indigenous people at Serpent River… we are covered by the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850. And that is our traditional territory. And in our traditional territory, ten lakes have been sacrificed to nuclear waste, so it’s affected the wildlife and the vegetation around the area. And we’ve been notified in the past not to consume… large quantities, of blueberries or, you know, wild game from the area because they were feeding near the tailings.

Metta Spencer

How radioactive are the tailings… when they’re when they’ve taken all the ore out that they can, the residue is just dirt with a lot of…?

Lorraine Rekmans

No, it’s radioactive. And so, when you… think about the decay chain of radioactive material, and I’m not an expert like Dr. Gordon Edwards, you might know Gordon…

Metta Spencer

Yeah, I turn to Gordon every time I have a question.

Lorraine Rekmans

Gord explains how through the decay chain, the material actually becomes more radioactive.

Metta Spencer

Oh, really? Yeah. So it starts out as low level radioactive waste, but as it decays and breaks down, it changes. So you end up with stuff like polonium… the issue when they when they dealt with the environmental assessment, I always thought the environmental assessment at Elliott lake was deficient in so many ways, you know, one they never accounted… for climate change. So to say we’re going to maintain a water cover on top of these ten lakes in perpetuity is impossible, because you have to draw water from other sources to maintain that water. And the only thing they were monitoring for in terms of runoff was looking at how acidic the runoff from the tailings was, you know, they would add lime to neutralize the acid. But the the water cover was really only to stop… oxidization… of the tailings to keep them away from the air. Because otherwise you end up with that orange gunky stuff, Now what, what does happen, you end up with what… if it’s exposed to air?

Lorraine Rekmans

Well, if it’s exposed… the weird thing is it had been exposed to air for decades before the 1990s and it was blowing, that’s how fine it was, it was you know, migrating all over the place. So they’re keeping the water cover on it to stop it from oxidizing, which is, I guess the process where the sulfuric acid interacts and turns everything orange.

Metta Spencer

You know, this is all new thinking to me, would it be possible to cover this stuff with something else besides water? Could you put concrete or something over it? Would that be better?

Lorraine Rekmans

Well, I don’t know. Like the nuclear waste management organization right now is talking about a facility to dispose of nuclear fuel rods from the reactors and they talked about cement casing, you know, building huge cement boxes in the earth. However, one of the problems with cement is that it erodes because water, you know, water will break down cement. That’s just a fact of life. So, it will never, you know, it’ll never be safe inside of cement casing. But the issue with Elliott Lake is (I think the way my dad used to say) the horse is already out of the barn. So here we are stuck with these ten lakes. And they’re contained, you know, they’re contained with these dams holding them back from you know, migrating… further into the surface, of the watershed. So, one of the one of the concerns I had was especially after the Mount Polley mine disaster in British Columbia. You may be familiar with that accident. Mount Polley was a mine that was mining gold, silver and copper. And they had huge tailings ponds that were held back by dams. And those dams collapsed. And released, you know, tons of hazardous chemicals into the local environment. And the British Columbia government at the time, ordered a review, they said, We must have a review of all existing tailings dams in the province to make sure this doesn’t happen again. And I’ve been… asking that the province of Ontario, take the same action. Especially given that these dams at Elliott Lake are decades old. And we have… crumbling infrastructure, we know that if we don’t maintain it and keep it up. I mean, we’re just at risk. So in the environmental assessment at the time, the federal government, scientists said it’s not it’s not a matter of if these dams will collapse, it’s only a question of when…

Metta Spencer

Yes… it was federal government inspectors who said that?

Lorraine Rekmans

That’s right… it’s in the federal Environmental Assessment Report. So I… followed that process all along, from my early days as a journalist to… this time… I’ve always been concerned with how… that waste is treated, who pays for it? How do we keep future generations safe? That’s the question. We created this huge radioactive mess. And we have to maintain it, and manage it, and protect future generations from any further… disaster, further threat to their water quality. And I think one of the big things that struck me through this whole process is that there is no rationale for nuclear energy at the end of the day, because it is too water-consumptive. And, you know, the big talk that’s, you know, going on right now about climate change is that nuclear energy is not carbon intensive, and there’s no emissions, you know, and all this other brand stuff about nuclear energy. However, we’re not factoring in the true cost. We’re not doing a full cost accounting of nuclear energy, if we don’t take into account the lakes that we have sacrificed, the water that we have wasted, and sacrificed. And at the other end of… the nuclear chain, is the question of disposal of the long term, long term waste, which is the nuclear fuel rods. So they, you know, they call them, I don’t know, the spent fuel rods, and they have all kinds of names like low-level radioactive waste, and it’s radioactive. At the end of the day — Sister, Rosalie Bertell always said, “No dose is a safe dose”. There’s no such thing as a safe dose, whether it’s low or high or intermediary — it’s still radioactive at the end of the day. So, you know, I think indigenous — and I’ve said this before — indigenous people have always been disproportionately impacted by resource development.

Metta Spencer

I love that. That much I do hear about… if anything, the indigenous communities are doing the most to publicize the risks. Seems to me, I see references to that a lot. For example, the Navajo in the US, they’re really apparently greatly affected by the accumulation of of radioactivity risk in their in their territory.

Lorraine Rekmans

…I mean, the cost of the thing is — I mean, no one talks about this, it’s probably an aside … but it’s a violation of the treaty.

Metta Spencer

Okay. All right. Well, tell me about your..

Lorraine Rekmans

treaty. I mean, we have rights to hunt, fish and trap in that territory.

Metta Spencer

Tell me about your group and and your role within it.

Lorraine Rekmans

Well, I don’t… have a group… I’m a band member of Serpent River First Nation…. I’ve worked with friends… to put that book together — This is My Homeland is just a collection of the stories of indigenous people, and how they were impacted specifically by those mines at Elliott lake. So it’s a case in environmental study.

Metta Spencer

This is my land: it’s really talking about indigenous land…

Lorraine Rekmans

My homeland, yeah… there’s a number of groups, I think, in Thunder Bay, indigenous people that are organized around, I think the, I guess the quest. So the nuclear waste management organization has a quest to find a site to dispose of the spent fuel rods, Indigenous people are resisting that effort because they don’t want. They don’t want to be holding the bag on this nuclear waste… with no benefit to their community whatsoever from the production of uranium and from the nuclear fuel or nuclear energy industry.

Metta Spencer

Now, where have they been proposing or considering putting these sites of waste disposal? In the ground, right? And there have been I knew five years ago, some of the names of…

Lorraine Rekmans

Saugeen. I think Saugeen First Nation was one of the sites that had been identified, which is right next to Lake Huron. There were I know, they were looking, I think they traveled through like, they looked at Elliott lake at one time, they were near Hearst. So Northern Ontario primarily. And it I think they were looking for granite rock formations. So they were talking about deep geological disposal. The idea, I think, what the idea initially was to dispose of it in containment facilities, looking at future retrieval, you know, as science progresses, like… could they go back there and dig this stuff up and do something else with it? Right. So I think the issue, you know, our history with — indigenous people, I’m saying our history with nuclear industry has been a tragedy. I’m certainly don’t want — it’s not fair. It just isn’t fair to ask someone else to bear the cost.

Metta Spencer

These places where they’re, they’re proposing or considering burying the stuff, how much of that is on indigenous territory?

Well, Saugeen First Nation is, it’s all treaty territory too also right. So this is one of the –and I’m going to get into sort of the politics of it a little bit, because that’s, you know, my background is really political. So if you look at the Robinson Huron Treaty of 1850, what it did was set up reserves, it set up Indian reserves, and then identified the territory of those people. So Robinson Huron treaty was signed by 17 different First Nations. And that would stretch from… Sault Sainte Marie to Penetanguishene. So it covers the north shore of Lake Huron on… down to the south. If there was an arrangement with anyone in that treaty territory, it would have to be agreed to by all 17 signatories to that treaty. You can’t just deal with one band. And under Canadian law, currently, if the federal government wants to impact — if they want to impact on indigenous land, there is a duty of consultation. So the Supreme Court has directed the Government of Canada to consult with indigenous people when it might take on an activity that’s going to impact their territory. So the nuclear waste management organization is not the Government of Canada. It’s an organization of industrial interests. So… it was enacted… by an Order in Council, by the Canadian government. But it’s really important to figure out who it is — like it’s not Minister of Environment that’s talking to indigenous people. It’s the waste management organization, so there’s a lot of weird things going on.

Metta Spencer

When… they had put people with different status, with different conflicting interests into the same body, what you’re suggesting, if I’m hearing you, is that all the people who who are doing this planning are all people who have got a vested interest in finding a place to dump it. And it might be very well on the place where you live.

Lorraine Rekmans

Right. It’s important to understand who the players are — like, I worked on this another side. So my… background really is in resource development. I’m a journalist, you know, by trade, I’ve worked for native organizations like tribal councils, and worked for an aboriginal newspaper for a while, worked for the National Aboriginal Forestry Association. And most recently, I was the critic for Indigenous Affairs for the Green Party.

Metta Spencer

And good credentials, I hereby approve of you.

Thank you… so I’ve worked a lot in politics and resource development and indigenous rights issues. And you get a little dabble of, you know, Canadian law in there, by, you know, just by tracking all the legal decisions that come out. And that’s why it’s important to look at how this — you know, it’s not only what’s going on, but it’s how it’s going on. I have said I take issue with that if the federal government is interested in, you know, taking on responsibility to manage nuclear waste, then the indigenous — the indigenous community has to be consulted. And under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, they call for free prior and informed consent. So free prior and informed consent would mean, as an indigenous community, you would have the resources that you need to assess what’s being proposed, fairly.

Metta Spencer

it certainly sounds right to me. If I’m trying to think of any argument for the other… point of view might be, well, this stuff exists, where are we going to put it? If you don’t want it in your land? What do you want to have done with it? Because it’s not going to go away? No, it definitely, what is — what is your notion

Lorraine Rekmans

about what do I think? First of all, I would say stop producing the stuff?

Metta Spencer

Well, yes. But we know that’s not going to happen immediately… the most optimistic thing you could say is we’ll wait till the power plant sort of run down and just don’t refurbish them, because you’re not going to have them shut it down tomorrow and have my apartment here go into a blackout because there ain’t no power.

Lorraine Rekmans

Well, the discussion right now is evolving. And the industry is making proposals for these small modular reactors, which are basically nuclear reactors that you buy in pieces and put together — so they’re already forecasting into the future. And they’re going to be producing small modular nuclear reactors. I know that we… Let’s stop this. We’re not going to build any more, let’s say… But what are we going to do with what’s already here? That’s what I’m worried about… where do you put it? I worked on the National Forest strategy. And within the National Forest Strategy for Canada, we had multi multiple stakeholders. So a variety of, you know, civil society, indigenous people. We had people that worked in the forest, people that ran meals to anybody, basically, could be part of that strategy. And we need that strategy. That’s the thing, the Canadian government of Canada does not have a nuclear waste strategy. That’s the first thing we need is to force our government to come up with a strategy, collect those stakeholders, get all of those voices at the table. You know, I really think that many, you know, many hands, you know, will make good work, because they will bring all these perspectives to the issue.

Metta Spencer

I don’t want to argue with you… I absolutely, I’m on your side, but I don’t know. I’m still stuck with it. Even if you get the best people in the world together. You got this damn stuff. And where are you going to put it? Right? I mean, I don’t know. I don’t, you know, you ask if somebody were to ask me what I would do with it I haven’t a clue. Do you bury it?

Lorraine Rekmans

It definitely has to be managed. I agree it has to be managed, it has to be contained. But the thing is that industry has come up with this idea. Right? It is the scientists that are industry based who have come up with this idea. And they’re telling us it’s the best proposal, and it’s the best option. We don’t even have the resources to assess that proposal properly. So how — it becomes a question of trust again — how do we trust given what’s happened in the past? So I do think that we need a strategy that the federal government needs to step up and and take this on. And because it is it’s in the national interest, how do we protect our environment, and responsibly store nuclear waste? This process is going on, you know, they’re already looking, you know, they’ve dug holes, and they’ve done site assessments in different territories across Northern Ontario. There’s been, you know, thousands of meetings. And, you know, I’m saying, Let’s pull this back a little bit. Let’s get the framework, let’s set a legal framework for how this thing is going to be done.

Metta Spencer

Okay, well, sure. I can’t see why any body would oppose what you’re saying. But we’re getting to the end of our conversation, and I still am. stumped, you know, because it’s, you know, the procedure, the process certainly needs attention. But there must be some alternative proposals out there floating around. Some people must have some — some ideas.

Lorraine Rekmans

Yeah, there are I mean, the there’s a Southwest I think the Southwest Research Station in Arizona, has done some work with Navajo people, and they’re, and they’re looking at multiple types of containment facilities. So there’s, there’s work going on around the world.

Metta Spencer

You know, it’s happening. I’ve heard people say, Well leave it above ground at where it is. Now. They keep it in containers, someplace near the power plants, if not really on, on site of power plants, and just leave it there. Don’t bury it? Well, you know, I’m not sure I’m happy with that. Because, you know, you take an airplane and crash it into one of those facilities and what you’re going to have — not fun. So I really don’t — I mean, there must be other people who have good ideas that are circulating, because if they — If nobody has a better idea, then you can have all of the get-togethers you want. Unless somebody’s got a better idea, what are you gonna do?

Lorraine Rekmans

Well.. they say… it’s not… the destination, but it’s the journey… how we get to the to the solution is just as important as the solution. Because nothing is going to be effective if there’s no relationship, if there’s no trust, you can’t just walk into an indigenous territory and dump off a bunch of nuclear garbage and expect it to be okay. Because the scientists said, “Hey, you know what, it’s safe. And we did all the, you know, the calculations…” I don’t like having it underground, either. Because it puts groundwater at risk. Okay. It puts groundwater at risk. And my experience over time has been that infrastructure is left to crumble, decades and decades down the road because there is not somebody there. One thing about indigenous people is they are there on the land for centuries, in the same place, watching, watching what’s happening and seeing what’s happening. And that is the traditional ecological knowledge. Like myself as an indigenous woman, tracking the nuclear waste at Elliot Lake for decades, and saying, you know what, those dams are really old, somebody needs to look after them. My experience has has led me to believe that people put something in the ground, forget about it and walk away. Yeah. And in 100 years, we’re talking… the half life… of radioactive particulate… is 500 years or

Metta Spencer

1000 years? 1000s of years? in many cases?

Lorraine Rekmans

… and that’s why the process is important, Metta. That’s why

Metta Spencer

Well, I know — you’re right — they made this sarcophagus at Chernobyl and so on. And the same in, in the Marshall Islands, there’s a dome there where they put all of the waste from the nuclear tests (not all of the waste, but what they could collect) and they put it in this hole and covered it with cement. And that is crumbling and apparently it is vulnerable underneath too because now this stuff is seeping out into the ocean and, and, and a tsunami or something can come along and knock the whole thing over. It would be stupendously dangerous. It is. And people you know, think, “Well, we’ve handled that, goodbye, we’ll go away, leave it.” So it is certainly — number one message is don’t generate the stuff. Leave it there in the ground where it’s all safer, dispersed.

Lorraine Rekmans

That’s for sure.

Metta Spencer

And then the question is now we’ve already got so much of it up. Yeah, well, bless your heart. Thank you so much, Lorraine. It’s a pleasure to get to know you. And

Lorraine Rekmans

Metta. Thank you.

Metta Spencer

If I ask some hard questions, it’s because it troubles me and I bet it troubles you too, that you know, got to find answers and doesn’t sound like anybody’s got any good ones. But it’s good to get hard questions.

Lorraine Rekmans

Thank you.

Metta Spencer

Okay, bless your heart and let’s be in touch occasionally I want to follow what you’re doing. And I really appreciate your your input and your… , you know, the fact that I count on — I just have the impression that the most responsible environment environmentalists today in the world, are indigenous groups and you can save us all. Okay, thank you.

T160. Enter, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons!

Posted on February 25, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T160. Enter, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons!

Ready to read another transcript?
Click here to return to the transcription home page

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 160
Panelists: Earl Turcotte
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 12 January 2021
Date Transcribed: 14 February 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer, how would you like to get rid of nuclear weapons? How would you like to abolish the damn things forever from the face of the planet? Well, I would too. And we have somebody with us today who is working on that. And in fact, I’m working on a little bit, but he is big time working. This is Earl Turcotte, who is chairing the Canadian network to abolish nuclear weapons, and probably a half a dozen other good organizations, because he’s a retired diplomat from the Canadian government and from the United Nations. Good morning Earl.

Earl Turcotte

Good morning. Better, very happy to be with you.

Metta Spencer

Yeah, well, I’m delighted to have you with me too, because you’re going to help me get straightened out. I’m going to tell people that there is such a thing as colloquially called the ban treaty, or the TPNW, which stands for the Treaty on the prohibition, or for the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Earl Turcotte

The Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Metta Spencer

Right? That’s great. Okay, and that’s what we are celebrating, because in a few days, it’s going to come into force. After you negotiate a treaty, you have to get a bunch of countries to sign it, when you get 50 of them to sign it, at least, then you wait a while, and it comes into force, it becomes international law. And that’s going to happen. So we are in Canada, and around the world, people who are activists, and who are concerned about nuclear weapons are acting together in various kinds of campaigns, to not only celebrate this event, and call attention to it, but also to get our countries to endorse it, or sign it and ratify it. I should have said after 50 have ratified it, which is different from just signing it. After they’ve signed and ratified, then we, we have this treaty, but we want to get our countries to ratify or sign it and ratified rather. And here we have a lot going on in Canada and Earl is on top of it, and I’m not. So Earl, there are at least three or four different projects going on, which you know about and I get emails flying around my inbox every day so that I’m totally overwhelmed with it. How are you? And what’s your role in this whole thing? And let’s get a first an overview of what your your position and and the organizations that I’m sort of involved with, on this matter. And then I want to ask you a bunch of specific questions about particular things that are planned events that are in the works. So pretend I never met you, who is your ochre cod and why should I like you?

Earl Turcotte

Well, maybe you shouldn’t like me, but I would like it if you did.

Metta Spencer

I like it. So explain why I like you so much.

Earl Turcotte

Well, I am the current chair of the Canadian network to abolish nuclear weapons. And this is a network of currently 17 soon to be 18 nongovernmental organizations that have various remits various mandates, but one thing in common and that is that they are all absolutely committed to the to the abolition of nuclear weapons. I’ll just name a few of our member organizations of the Canadian Coalition for nuclear responsibility. Canadian Pugwash group the group of 78 project plowshares religions for peace, the Rideau Institute, and, and so on. So you just get a flavor of the of the diverse organizations that are part of our network. We also work outside the network very cooperatively and recently in particular extremely well with with different NGOs, and and Coalition’s, such as the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, and also here in Canada, organizations that follow him signed the form network itself. So we all have the commitment to nuclear evolution in common and we were all absolutely delighted when in 2017 124 countries came together and negotiated the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons the TPNW. Now out of the 124 it was absolutely astounding that at the end 122 actually endorsed the text following. T he only two that didn’t were the Netherlands, which, as you know, is a NATO state. And they were the only NATO state that participated in the negotiations. And Singapore, I believe, abstained in the end. So other than that, we got pretty much two thirds of the world states having endorsed the text. Since that time — legally, the way it happens is up to the point of the entry into force, that is to say, when a treaty becomes legally binding, there’s a two stage process — 1. states first sign, which is an indication of intent, really. 2. one of the obligations is for them to put in place domestic legislation that will reflect all of the legally binding obligations and prohibitions that are required under the treaty, to make sure that their domestic laws are consistent and will uphold the treaty. It takes time to do that. And as you can imagine, bills have to be passed through Parliaments or through government and and signed into law. At that point, then a state can ratify, and submit its instruments of ratification to the depository. In this case, it is the Secretary General of the United Nations. And in the case of the TPNW, the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, a threshold of 50 states was set as the minimum number of states that had to ratify to trigger the entry into force 90 days later.

Metta Spencer

Oh, me but I that’s interesting, too, because you just told me something I didn’t know. I didn’t realize that. It varied I assumed it was 50 for all treaties, that’s just part of the world. But no, if each treaty sets its own threshold,

Earl Turcotte

Yes, yes, it does. And that’s caused all kinds of repercussions. In different treaties, sometimes the threshold has been set extremely high to trigger the entry into force. And indeed, some treaties have not entered into force yet. So this one, the threshold was was healthy: 50 states. But it was met fairly quickly in in diplomatic terms very quickly, indeed. And the 50th state ratified on the 25th of October of last year; hence, the act triggered the 90 day period for entry into force. And on January 22, it will formally enter into force. Now, what that means, first and foremost is that that treaty then becomes legally binding on all states that have become a party to it. Very important, it is not legally binding on states that have chosen not to become party to it. That said, It establishes a new international norm. And this is the first time that that nuclear weapons will have been deemed completely illegal in international law. For the parties that have been referred to, states that have become a party to this tree.

Metta Spencer

I don’t want to deflect you bit. But you know, I’m sure that everybody is listening who listens with a skeptical ear is going to say, Well, so what if the countries that own the nuclear weapons are not bound by it? So what else do you got? that’s worthwhile? Why is this importance?

Earl Turcotte

Okay, well, it’s a number. It’s important for a whole number of reasons. One is it establishes a new norm in effect, these weapons have been stigmatized. And this has affected the behavior of states in the past with other treaties, whether or not they are party to the treaty. Think of anti personnel landmines. Think of cluster munitions. Think of chemical and biological. Well, you know, the United States, for example, has refused to become party to either the mine ban treaty or the Convention on cluster munitions. But they have not used anti-personnel landmines for many, many years, in large part because of the stigmatization that is now associated with them.

Metta Spencer

So it helps establish the norm. As devil’s advocate, let me let me imagine that somebody would certainly say, well, nor have they exploded a nuclear weapon in many, many years. So what else is new?

Earl Turcotte

That is true. Okay. Well, what else is new is that this treaty contains a provision that requires all states party to make best efforts to universalize the treaty. So they have this this imposes a legal obligation on countries that become party to this treaty to make their best efforts to persuade states not party to join the treaty. This will affect their international relations, not only in multilateral disarmament forum, but also if diplomats are doing their jobs in their bilateral relationships, this should become a talking point in any other major interactions from one state, a state party to non-state party, urging them so in effect, what you’re doing is you are establishing a lobbying effort, an official lobbying effort among states that reflects the kind of lobbying that civil society has been doing for years. And in this case, it is required. Oh, it will, it will have an effect.

Metta Spencer

Okay, now, now, let’s say this, that sounds begins to sound like teeth, that the thing may have. So if I were a military leader, loving my nuclear weapons and, and possessing a few, I imagine that what I would do is either try to ignore this thing and pretend it didn’t exist, which I assume, explains the fact that there’s no publicity in one of the nuclear countries, certainly the US as I can tell, or I would fight it and and try to get people to not sign it, or what else would I do?

Earl Turcotte

Well, actually, both usually. The greatest insult that can be leveled at a process like this is for it to be ignored. And in the beginning, before the treaty was negotiated, indeed, nuclear armed states did ignore the process. They did not take it seriously. When the negotiations commenced, they took it very, very seriously. And tried to discourage participation. And indeed, the United States made a concerted effort to discourage all of its allies to boycott the negotiations. And all NATO states except one, the Netherlands, did. And it became clear later on that the Netherlands participated, not because they were negotiating in good faith, but they were they were doing their level best (it appeared) to to reduce the effectiveness of any instrument that might emerge from the negotiations. And in the end, they voted against it. So they played the typical spoiler role. So the United — so NATO — has not ignored and very interestingly, on the 20th of October, or 23rd, sometime that week, NATO made a point of coming out on the occasion of the 50th state ratifying again, denouncing the treaty, and the United States wrote a letter to all states that had signed for ratified, essentially informed them in no uncertain terms, that in their view, they had made a strategic mistake, and strongly urge them to withdraw from the treaty. So that I think can be taken as a compliment. They are taking this treaty very seriously. They know it has teeth, they know it will have impact, it cannot be ignored. And remember, 122 states endorsed the text of the treaty. So it’s only a matter of time, as far as we’re concerned, before at least that number of states join the treaty. And when you have two thirds of the world that in a fairly short period of time is going to consider nuclear weapons to be illegal, as well as immoral, that will bring to bear tremendous pressure on the nine nuclear armed states and their enabling states, their allies, including, unfortunately, our own.

Metta Spencer

Okay, well, now, you’ve mentioned that the NATO states are certainly foremost among those opposing it. But is there much variation among states that own nuclear weapons in their attitude toward this treaty? Have they expressed different points of view — say, China, Russia, India, etc, all of these different countries that own nuclear weapons? Are they as adamant about the matter as the US has been in getting NATO to oppose it?

Earl Turcotte

I don’t have a lot of detailed information on that, Metta, I can tell you that they are quite uniform, all nine nuclear armed states have uniformly denounced this treaty. To my knowledge. I don’t have the details on specific statements. I’ve been following the US very closely. And of course, the UK and France. The other two NATO states that are have nuclear weapons are standing firmly with the United States on this. And indeed, non-nuclear armed NATO allies are as well. So this is something we have to work against. But no there is not one of the nine nuclear armed states that has spoken highly about this treaty. However, there are some nuclear armed states that have indicated that they’re very open to dialogue and and and discussion on where they might go from here to pursue nuclear disarmament. And I should, in fairness to the United States and whatnot, and to their allies, make it very clear that NATO itself has said it is completely and sincerely committed to the ultimate goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons. Yes, they are. What is that issue is when and how. And they believe that this is not the way to go. In part, and it’s a kind of a circuitous argument, they say, well, this treaty does not involve any nuclear-armed states, therefore, it will not ultimately result in the destruction of any nuclear arms. Well, it begs the question, if they were to join the treaty, then indeed, it would have that impact. But aside from that, there is a tremendous value in this treaty from a non-proliferation perspective. And what’s kind of ironic is, on one hand, nuclear-armed states are advocating for non-proliferation, that is to say, although we want to retain our nuclear weapons, we don’t want anyone else to have them. Heaven forbid that Iran and North Korea should have nuclear weapons, because then it poses a global threat, whereas ours, of course, are a guarantee of international security. The hypocrisy in the double standards is palpable. But they they are all nonetheless, at least in theory, committed to nuclear disarmament. The question is, what are they going to do? Now, where this plays out in reality is interesting. A case in point: the New Start tree that is going to expire next month. As it’s a bilateral treaty between the US and Russia, that has imposed tremendous limitations on strategic weapons, Russia has said that it is prepared to extend the New Start treaty for five years without any preconditions. And this can be done simply on the basis of a signature. To date, the Trump administration has absolutely refused to do that. And we’re very hopeful that Mr. Biden when he takes over and he has indicated that a renewal of New Start is going to be near the top of the list of priorities, we hope that he follows through on that, and I suspect that will perhaps get things off on on a better footing in terms of getting back to dialogue between the US and Russia, which between the two of them possess more than 90% of all the nuclear arms in the world. So any bilateral agreement they have, and any new agreements that can be negotiated, can have tremendous impact. And ultimately, as happened during the Reagan-Gorbachev years, if they can come to agreement on making major reductions in the number of nuclear arms in their respective arsenals, this can have tremendous ripple effect and multiplier effect among other nuclear-armed states. Because the reality is that right now, and for about the past four years, they’ve embarked on a new nuclear arms race, under the banner of modernization, but they’re also developing new missile technologies and lower-yield US nuclear weapons that, in fact, can be more dangerous, because they’re more easily deployable. And the threshold for use is lower. All of these things: this is a very, very scary time. And as you will know, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have set the doomsday clock at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest it has been in history, closer than during the Cold War during the Cuban Missile Crisis,

Metta Spencer

The average person certainly in all of the nuclear-armed states, and probably many others, including Canada, \is really unaware of this danger and thinks that in a way, the nuclear weapons issue is something that we worried about 30 or 40 years ago, and we don’t need to worry about any more. And I think that what, you know, here we have this extremely interesting conjunction of both opportunity with a ban treaty and increasing risk that people are simply not aware of. And really, we need to bring these two things together and make people realize how urgent. The situation is and how accessible the answer is, you know.

Earl Turcotte

And let me make a couple of points here. One is that the position our network has taken as this is that if nuclear-armed states have an issue with the way the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which we think is wonderful — and it is actually a much more robust and comprehensive instrument than most people give it credit for, I mean, I’ve gone through it in detail and, and it, it has a lot of positive or all all the basic prohibitions, but also positive obligations on it for remediation of territory that has been affected by testing. And, of course, the hibakusha victim assistance for victim assistance for the hibakusha, the Japanese who were affected for Japanese victims of the bombing in Vienna, in 1945. It’s a very robust treaty. But if for whatever reason nuclear armed states refuse to support it or become party to it, then what we are advocating is for them, then to commence negotiations on a calm, complimentary, legally binding instrument of their own making, as long as achieves the same ultimate goal. And that is essentially the complete and total elimination of nuclear weapons, and placing all existing weapons-grade fissile material under effective international control, until such time as it can be depleted to more safe levels and contained. And to put in place a means of verification to ensure compliance. And that is the only way we’re going to put this genie back in the bottle. We’re not suggesting that NATO unilaterally disarm, that could be destabilizing, and it’s not going to happen. What we want is for NATO to take the lead in engaging all nuclear-armed states, in discussions that will lead to negotiations of a comprehensive, multilateral treaty (if this is not the one for them) that will have the same result, to go hand in hand and just get rid of these weapons in a very, very systematic, careful way, while putting in place measures for common sustainable security for all to see us through that period, that some might consider to be very destabilizing. In fact, we believe it would make it much more stable. Because one of the greatest threats to stability internationally today is the existence of nuclear weapons. Get rid of those and what the world will feel like and be a much more secure place. And we want Canada to play a leadership role in pushing NATO. To do that. We have a few minutes, maybe we can talk now about some of the initiatives we’re trying to do that.

Metta Spencer

Right. Well, we we don’t have to finish it at one o’clock if, you know, we get wound up. Going to cut us off. Nothing happens as it would if we were really on TV. So yeah, let me ask one more question. Maybe it’s sort of a diversion. But it’s of interest to me. That is you almost said something that related to a dispute. I don’t know whether you’d call it a dispute or a question that has arisen in some of the meetings. And that is we there’s always been for many years an effort to promote something that’s called a convention on nuclear weapons. And that’s went on way, before we begin the initiative to create the TPNW. But what I heard you say once in a meeting was– look, this ban treaty is so good, that it’s enough by itself, if people would use it, it’s got all the ingredients in it, that would be necessary in a convention. And therefore, we don’t really need a convention. But now you’ve you’ve suggested that, well, if nuclear weapons states don’t like what we’ve done, this TPNW, then of course, go get a convention. Am I right in interpreting what you said and and, and tell me if you know, if there’s a qualification that way.

Earl Turcotte

Yeah, the two are not mutually exclusive. No, there are elements in this convention. And I have to say the way the negotiators negotiated, it was extremely deft, it was very, very well done. They did not upfront decide on one of the thorniest mechanisms is going to be the means to ensure, to verify that states are doing what they say they will do and to ensure compliance. So you’ve got to have a competent international authority that can monitor the action the behavior of states, the actions of states and and ensure compliance, to be able to submit reports to ensure that people are doing what they say they’re going to do. Now, in this treaty, it does not expressly lay out how that is going to be done. What it does do is it says that, once the treaty is in force, that within one year, there will be a meeting of states party. And at that meeting of states party, they will identify a competent international authority that will help them establish the technical means to monitor to verify and to ensure compliance with all the provisions of the treaty. Now, there have been a number of ideas, because that in itself is a negotiation. There are a number of ways this can be done, we have the International Atomic Energy Agency agreements that are in place, we have the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, the CTBTO, that has a tremendous technical capacity and knowledge. To do this, you could establish a new body and bring in all the relevant expertise that you need to do this. There are a number of ways it could be done, but the negotiators knew they did not have the time during that negotiation. And that also, this is something that could be negotiated later. And this is not unusual. You can consider this in many ways, as a framework treaty with certain technical elements that need to be fleshed out. But the obligations and the commitments are there. So for NATO, to to criticize the TPNW by saying, well, it doesn’t include measures for verification and compliance — well, the response to that is not yet but it will shortly. So they’d like to point to the weakness of it. I think, as they said, I stand by the fact that this is a robust treaty, a very high quality document. And other countries could simply adopt it and take it forward. Politically, I don’t think that will happen, if for no other reason, than to save national face, countries that denounced this process from the beginning, because they weren’t leading it… and didn’t want to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, will, for that reason alone, probably never want to simply say, okay, we’ve changed our minds will become a party to the TPNW. They might want to negotiate their own treaty. And again, I think that’s fine… it’s not the the instrument, it is the impact that is ultimately important. So they can do that. But right now, they’ve demonstrated no political will to do that.

Metta Spencer

Do they claim or do any of them claim that the reason they don’t do it is that it’s not really possible or feasible to realistically establish a verification regime? Do they say… we cannot establish mechanisms for detection of any lack of compliance? Therefore, we can’t really create such a treaty? They don’t claim this?

Earl Turcotte

No, that’s not really the issue, because it’s done in the case of chemical and biological weapons and other weapon systems… it’s not a technical constraint. What is missing is the political will to give up nuclear weapons. That’s what’s missing. And… our view is that we have to increase the pressure among other states of the world that believe these things have to be gone. Because let’s face it, this is an existential threat for the whole planet, we have not only the right but indeed the responsibility for no other reason than self defense and defense of the planet, to do everything we can to bring pressure to bear on nuclear armed states. And civil society plays a very, very important role in pressing states as well to do that. And I think now that we’ve got a core here, of states with a legal obligation, and that is going to increase over time, as they begin to universalize. And as others get their instruments of ratification submitted and everything else, the numbers will become greater and greater. And we’ve got to circle,encircle nuclear armed states (metaphorically speaking) and turn up the heat. Big time. I’m of the view that any country that retains nuclear weapons… or will threaten to use nuclear weapons is in fact a rogue state and should be regarded as such. And we should bring all manner of diplomatic, economic and social pressure to bear against such countries until they give them up.

Metta Spencer

Well, you know, turning up the heat sounds good to me, and I’ve got my (book) torch right here. Let’s go for it. And I’m not the only one because obviously with my inbox full of mail about things that are going to happen in the next few days to try to turn up the heat under the Canadian government to sign and ratify the treaty. And, by the way, let’s take a second and talk about the danger that is alleged, or the constraint that is alleged, before we talk about the particulars of our various campaigns. People say, well, can’t Canada couldn’t sign it? Because we’re part of NATO. And I think we ought to talk about that a second. What’s the issue? What Why can’t Canada sign as a member of NATO? And or ratify? And is it really true? Is there a way around it?

Earl Turcotte

I think …it’s a misconception that Canada cannot both remain a member of NATO in good standing and ratify the TPNW, what Canada would have to do, would be to disassociate itself from the Nuclear Security doctrine within NATO. Now, NATO does not require that all states move in lockstep and have identical security doctrines by which they abide. Case in point, we have a ban on anti-personnel mines, and cluster munitions; the United States does not. You know, we’re both NATO states, we have worked out a modus vivendi with other nations within NATO. So different security doctrines. The nuclear security doctrine is just another issue where states can have diverse approaches, all they would have to do to be eligible to join TPNW would be to denounce nuclear weapons, to commit to their verifiable elimination over time within a certain timetable that would be established under treaty. And they can remain members of NATO if they so choose, under those circumstances. And in fact, in my view, that would be the ideal situation, it I think that we would have a much more powerful voice in influencing NATO, as a member of NATO — than we would if we were to withdraw from NATO, where we then become another distant voice, perhaps considered to be a former disgruntled member of NATO. I would like Canada to remain a member of NATO, but try to reform NATO security doctrine, not just in the area by the way of nuclear weapons, but in many other areas where I and others have taken great exception to some of the behavior of NATO. That said, we take great exception to the behavior of many other states as well, outside of NATO. And, and I for one, I’m glad that we have a bulwark, you know, to to contain that, as well.

Metta Spencer

Well, everything you said, makes me happy. And makes me optimistic that everything could be done if we just get our act together and push a little bit. So this pushing is about to, you know, take on momentum in the next few days. As we approach the time when the treaty comes into effect. Tell me and help me get clear about all of these different campaigns and meetings and events that are planned?

Earl Turcotte

Well, there are a number of things going on. And I would if you want to know what’s going on around the world, I would refer you to the ICANW website, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. They have a long list of things that are going on around the world. I’ll mention a couple of things that are happening here in Canada. … On November 19. a webinar was held that was sponsored by the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute and moderated by them that involved three members of parliament. Elizabeth May of the Green Party, Heather MacPherson, of the NDP and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe of the BQ. This was on the occasion of the 50th state ratifying, to celebrate if you like, the imminent entry into force of the TPNW. Excuse me.

Metta Spencer

Now, you mentioned three parties. You did not mention the Liberals or the Conservatives. … comment on that.

Earl Turcotte

Our colleagues on one of our member organizations, the Hiroshima-Nagasaki Coalition took the lead on putting this in place with the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute… Dr. Anton Wagner, I think was spearheading it and so they worked very closely together. They did invite Dr. Hedi Fry of the Liberal Party who is also a member of Parliamentarians for Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and has been for decades. So she personally is a very, very strong advocate for nuclear arms control. And she was scheduled to participate.

Metta Spencer

I’m sorry, Dr. Hedi Fry… You mentioned an NDP person.

Earl Turcotte

Yes… Heather MacPherson, of the NDP. Yes. And Dr. Hedi Fry, the Liberal. I know she was scheduled to participate, had committed to it and ran into some scheduling issues that prevented her from participating. Full stop. And to my knowledge, the Conservatives were invited, but declined to participate.

Metta Spencer

Now… our government is a Liberal government. And would that have meant that she was in any way compromised by the fact that she’s part of… the Liberal government, and would maybe not be free to say something that would be in opposition to the party’s position?

Earl Turcotte

Well, let’s look at some of the speculation. And of course, we don’t we don’t know for certain, but I do know that she has been… one of the longest standing Liberal MPs in Parliament, and if not the, and has been a very, very outspoken proponent of nuclear arms control, both in Canada and internationally. So I give her full benefit of the doubt as to why she did not participate in that event. Now, what happened is during that webinar, the MPs themselves came up with a suggestion that a press conference might be held to mark the entry into force of the TPNW. And indeed, that has now been scheduled for the 21st of this month, the day before entry into force, because entry into force happens to fall on a Friday. And holding a press conference on a Friday is not considered the best day. And also because Parliament is going to reconvene the following Monday. There are a lot of things going on, on Friday in caucus and whatnot. So there will be a press conference at 10 o’clock am Eastern time. And Heather MacPherson herself, will physically be at the press theater. Or in actually it’s the Sir John A Macdonald room. Or in the Sir John A Macdonald building rather, here on the hill. And also participating will be Elizabeth May, for the greens, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe for the BQ, and as a representative of civil society, nominated by our network, the Canadian network to abolish nuclear weapons, the Honorable Douglas Roche, recipient of the Order of Canada, and actually the founding Chair of the CNANW and a longtime passionate advocate for nuclear disarmament. So we’re delighted that we have them already… Dr. Fry has been invited to participate in this and she is considering it as well. And we have sent an invitation to Erin O’Toole for a Conservative to to participate as well. So we would be delighted if we have all-party representation in this nonpartisan event to mark the entry into force of the TPNW. That’s one thing that’s happening. Another thing you should be aware of is that Dr. Wagner and and his colleagues in the in the Hiroshima-Nagasaki day coalition, again took the lead on pulling together broad support for an ad that is going to be placed in the Hill Times, which is read by parliamentarians and the diplomatic corps, and a lot of people in the know across Canada. It’s a wonderful publication. And but this is going to be a paid ad that is going to run at least two and probably three pages long. Because it’s going to be endorsed by quite a few organizations and individuals and the names will all be spelled out there. What it is asking, in fact, it’s a call upon the Government of Canada to allow a debate in Parliament on the TPNW. And a secondary request is to hold public hearings in the Standing Committee on International Affairs… pardon me, Foreign Affairs and International Development on Canada’s role in advancing nuclear disarmament more generally. So we are hopeful that the MPs participating in this press conference might support this request by civil society for a parliamentary debate and committee hearings. Because what we want to do is to finally get the government to respond to multiple requests that we have made for Canada to step up and to start to play a leadership role in nuclear disarmament, as our current Prime Minister’s father did back in the 80s. He made it a personal mission… of his to engage world leaders on nuclear disarmament to suffocate the nuclear arms race. And, you know… Canada took the lead in the anti-personnel mine ban treaty. We demonstrated that kind of international leadership in arms control and disarmament in the past, but we have certainly not done it in nuclear disarmament, we’ve pursued things that are important, the fissile material cutoff treaty and whatnot. But we’ve got nowhere in part, because we limit ourselves to trying to make headway through traditional multilateral fora, one in particular, the Conference on Disarmament, that operates on the basis of consensus… which is a recipe for paralysis and has done nothing for almost 25 years. So we want Canada to start to demonstrate real leadership, take this to the UN, as this treaty was taken through the UN, and operate under the rules of the General Assembly, where votes can be held. And no single country or small group of countries can hold the world ransom as they can in the CD or in the in the Security Council for that matter.

Metta Spencer

Well, that is exactly the kind of ambition that I want to encourage, certainly, I am myself felt discouraged over the over the years, with the failure of the government to respond to whatever prodding we do. And certainly, there was an initiative some years ago… for the members of the Order of Canada, to put an initiative to Parliament, maybe you can mention what happened there, and how the whole thing just, you know, fizzled out or never went anywhere.

Earl Turcotte

Well… a sister organization, Canadians for Nuclear Weapons Convention [under Pugwash]… its members are limited to recipients of the Order of Canada, and they have over 1000 representatives of the Order of Canada, who are supportive. This organization is chaired by our colleague and mutual friend Ernie Regehr. And it does tremendous work. Now I know they have written them, I’ve seen the letters that they have written wonderful, thoughtful, knowledgeable letters to the government. We’ve done a few of our own, our own through the network, and whatnot. And we have received no responses to our letters. And to my knowledge… I don’t think CNWC has either.

Metta Spencer

You know, the fact that this initiative was addressed in Parliament and accepted by both houses,

Earl Turcotte

I’m sorry, but what you’re referring to, I believe, is in 2010… in 2010, there was a motion adopted in Parliament. And the Senate [gave] actually unanimous support for a motion that Canada begin to play a leadership role and to… undertake a major international diplomatic initiative to pursue nuclear disarmament. And more recently, in 2018, the Standing Committee on National Defense made an all-party recommendation to the government in 2018, that Canada take a leadership role in NATO, in pursuing nuclear disarmament through NATO. So it seems we have in Parliament, a lot of parliamentarians who are supportive of doing this. And I’ll tell you what’s been missing, I think, is a sense of urgency, that this is unlike climate change, that the dangers are not imminent? Well, I’ll tell you, right events of late are changing that perception. Look at what happened this past week, when you had the Speaker of the House in the US having to speak to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that the incumbent president doesn’t do something stupid like launch nuclear weapons. I mean, this is just one instance of what could possibly happen with the wrong person with access to nuclear weaponry. We know that terrorist organizations, several terrorist organizations around the world are trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability and fissile material. So whether that’ll be for a traditional nuclear bomb, or… a dirty Bomb, the danger exists and you can be sure that if they acquire that capability, they will use it. It is simply a matter of time before something happens unless we get rid of these weapons, and we rein in all the fissile material that is floating around out there and put it under effective control. We’ve got to put this genie back in the bottle and people what you are doing a lot to help do that. And we’re very grateful.

Metta Spencer

Well, this is exactly, you know, what haunted me that all these years ago, Parliament said, do something and nothing was done. That’s what bugs me, you know, we need to get on to it. And this is what happened this week is exactly an exemplification of the kind of threat that’s been there all along. I mean, you know, Trump is the same madman, he’s always been… the danger has existed and in fact, gets worse all the time. So it is an enormous risk. And, and it is something that we absolutely have to get a high priority to. So I just take my hat off to you are up for being a ringleader in this enterprise. And, and for the ringmaster let’s say I think of you in the in the circus

Earl Turcotte

It really is a team effort.

Metta Spencer

Let’s encourage the listeners if there’s anybody out there and there will be a few, at any rate, to take it on… what should a person do if if we have managed to ignite their anxieties?

Earl Turcotte

Well, a number of things. One is there is an electronic petition that was initiated by our colleague, Dr. Nessie Covington, that is being sponsored by Elizabeth May, an electronic petition that is going to go to Parliament, I think February 6 is the last day for for people to sign that can be found online. Actually, look under the CNANW website, I believe, I believe we have it posted there. If not, I’ll make sure it is later today.

Metta Spencer

If you’ll send me make sure it’s correct so that I don’t put up the wrong thing. But whatever links you want put at the end of this show, of course, now we’re doing this live, but it will go on our YouTube site and other places for people to look at indefinitely. And at the end, I’ll put a sign showing all the links that we want to refer to. So make sure I have everything that I need. Right. And I’ll put it up today.

Earl Turcotte

And better, there is there is another very important development and that is the CNANW is is updating a call to action to the Government of Canada. We’re going to have this released just before the press conference on the 21st, I expect, and it sets out 15 specific recommendations and several sub recommendations to the Government of Canada, we would like Canada to undertake in order to play this leadership role nationally and internationally on nuclear disarmament. So what we will be asking is we’ll be sending it directly to the government to the Prime Minister and relevant ministers under our signatures alone at this stage, but we will then be circulating it broadly asking organizations and individuals to to endorse it. And then when they endorse it to send it to forwarded to the Prime Minister’s office and to the relevant ministers indicating that they support this so that we in effect, have it like each one becomes an individual petition if you like. And we would like to blanket ,electronically blanket our political leaders, and let them know that Canadians care, because what is missing right now is the voice of Canadians across the country. We have a voice but it’s not strong enough. And we need a bigger course. And we need more leaders as well, and especially young people. So

Metta Spencer

Let’s talk beyond Canada. Because although not many people today are probably watching us outside of Canada. This is going to be on YouTube and Facebook and places that go around the world. And we are publicizing it and I will be published everything and even more. So there’ll be people in other countries watching this too. And I want to suggest that that you tell people what they can do, what other countries are making the kind of effort so far as you know, that Canadians are making to try to draw attention to this on the 22nd of January. And what what can people do if they don’t happen to live in Canada, but they want to show their enthusiasm for this new ban treaty.

Earl Turcotte

Well First of all, I know that almost every country that participated in the negotiations of TPNW has activities ongoing. So, you know… people can use the internet to find out what their own nation is doing. But also on the internet, the the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, ICANN has a website in which they give you they give you and I have it right here, the status of the treaty, who is party to it, who has ratified, who has signed, who has not, and things that they can do. And they also have posted events and whatnot. And if anyone would like to know how they can help, I would urge them to contact if they’re not in Canada, urge them to contact ICANN directly, and and seek guidance. And as other ideas come into my head…

Metta Spencer

Now this, this show will be available long after January 2, people will be seeing it a year from him, because we put it on a loop on our YouTube channel where it goes a day and night with a bunch of other shows. And eventually it’ll pop up and people will check. Check it out and see it. So we need to give some advice to people who are agitated about this issue. And watching it later about what they can do after the treaty has come into force to try to promote it. And who what what do we need to do? If If what do viewers who are watching a year or two from now? And we’re now in January 2021. What should they be doing that will help promote this.

Earl Turcotte

I would urge them first and foremost to contact their political leaders, their national leaders — write a letter and ask them what they are doing. Find out what your country’s position is on this treaty and on nuclear disarmament more generally, make the inquiry directly. Then I would urge them to identify NGOs, non government organizations, civil society organizations in their own country that are active actively engaged in promoting the treaty and promoting nuclear disarmament more generally, and join forces with them. find out who’s already in the lead and and see where you might be instrumental but there’s there is no substitute for direct communication with your national leaders in democratic countries, especially to bring pressure to bear. They have to know that the average citizen cares is interested and is watching is and, and speak out often. To… engage them in this because they do respond. But in a democracy generally they eventually respond if the pressure is high enough and enough voices are out there.

Metta Spencer

All right, we’ve covered the waterfront and and that’s just what we needed to do today. I think and I’m really grateful to you and I’m glad because it was also fun and enjoyable. So greetings to everybody out there who have become a peace worker and an anti nuclear weapons advocate just because our friend Earl for caught here so onwards.

Earl Turcotte

Thanks so much. Thanks all for watching.

Metta Spencer

Yeah, thank you

T145. Colin Archer on the International Peace Bureau

Posted on February 25, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T145. Colin Archer on the International Peace Bureau

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 145
Panelists: Colin Archer
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 18 December 2020
Date Transcribed: 26 January 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: Metta Spencer and Adam Wynne

Metta Spencer

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer, in Toronto, and I’m looking forward to this conversation with a friend of mine in Leeds, England. I’m going to have a wonderful conversation with Colin Archer. I was on the steering committee or whatever it was called in those days of the International Peace Bureau for I think, three years. At a time when Colin Archer was the managing guy. We call it CEO. No that’s not the term

Colin Archer

No, no, in Geneva it’s called the secretary general, it’s even more elevated

Metta Spencer

Either one sounds very impressive to me. And you were a very impressive executive. So and and and now he’s turned into Santa Claus

Colin Archer

That’s right. I just thought we all need a little cheering up, and he’s the guy we need to have around.

Metta Spencer

That’s wonderful. Okay, well, it’s a good hat. And it’s wonderful to see you. Colin, for a long time, devoted his life to the International Peace Bureau, which is, I guess, the longest lived umbrella organization of peace groups in the world. And it won the Nobel Peace Prize in — what year was it?

Colin Archer

1910. So it’s going back a long way. Right? Founded in 1891.

Metta Spencer

Ah, yeah. So Nobel was … When did Nobel die? Do we know?

Colin Archer

It was something like 1895. And the first prizes were awarded in 1901. And the IPB pioneers were part of that whole circle around, well, including Nobel and Bertha von Suttner. And many others, at the founding, both of the Nobel Prize institution and also of the League of Nations, which, of course, was born just after the First World War. It was a very special period, a period of tremendous optimism in world politics. And in society. There are all these modern inventions coming about; there hadn’t been a war since 1870. And everybody felt that we were now approaching a new era where war would be a thing of the past, and everyone will behave rationally, and so on. Well, I’m afraid we had a terrible comeuppance, not once, but twice. And you know, war is still with us. But that was the origin of the IPB, which I then took over in 1990.

Metta Spencer

Wow, I didn’t remember when you started. All I knew was — I think when I became aware of IPP, you were already the Executive Secretary General, Secretary, General– I love that title. Yeah. Okay. So you’ve been retired two, three years, three years now?

Colin Archer

Yeah. Yes, I was 27 years at IPB? It was a very long haul.

Metta Spencer

It was based in Geneva. But as after you retired, there’s been some reorganization so that the work is dispersed in some sense. Can you explain how that works?

Colin Archer

That’s right. Well, you know, Geneva is a very expensive city. And, you know, money is difficult in the peace movement. And we made the decision, you know, it was my proposal in a way that we should, in fact, close the Geneva office and move it to Berlin, which is not only cheaper, but it also politically very interesting, being sort of halfway between, let’s say London and Moscow. It faces in both directions. And it’s a powerful country with a big influence, and a very strong peace movement. And our co president, at that time, Reiner Baum, was based in Berlin. And so he is basically taking it over. And he’s now running it as the CEO, whatever you want to call it. So also, we decided that we would split off the Global Campaign on Military spending, which was the main campaign that I worked on in the latter period of my time. That is now based in Barcelona, with the Centre Delàs, which is one of our member organizations. And we keep a small presence in Geneva too. So yes, it’s more decentralized.

Metta Spencer

Yeah, that global campaign, they changed the name it was Global Day of Action Against Military Spending, originally, GDAMS, right? And it has become a week long event — is that…

Colin Archer

A month long event, you know, different people want to have it at different times according to their own political calendars. So we say well, let’s have a season. In the spring around the time that the annual military spending figures are announced by SIPRI, the Stockholm Institute for Peace Research. So we base it on that day and also tax day in the United States is an important mobilizing moment to discuss what is done with the citizens’ taxes. So, but you know, other dates to other people. And then we decided that, you know, we needed to have a permanent year round campaign because military spending is such a huge beast to tackle. It’s not going to be in, we’re not going to make a dent in it just by having a day, a week or a month, it needs to be a permanent campaign to challenge the priorities of our militaristic governments. So it’s GCOMS now – Global Campaign on Military Spending.

Metta Spencer

And military spending four is, in a way, the linchpin of the whole thing. You know, if if we just did nothing, work on, you know, changing where we put our priorities about money, that would handle about 90% of our military problems, right?

Colin Archer

I mean, well, yes, that’s right. And that was, in a way, the case that I made when I suggested that IPB should take up this issue. We had done, you know, campaigns on nuclear weapons, on the illegality question, taking the question of nuclear weapons to the World Court in the early 90s. Then we’d had several years running a campaign on Peace Education worldwide, that was connected to the Hague Appeal for Peace conference in 1999. But after 911, and all the debate about human security, we felt we needed a new focus. And there was a sort of gap, if you like, nobody was really running a campaign on military spending. A lot of people would talk about it and say, Oh, isn’t it terrible, we’re spending so much, but that’s very different to actually having an organized, coordinated campaign. So that’s what we we set up. And that’s what we’re still doing. But and I do say that it is, in a sense, the trunk of the tree, you know, you can you can snip off little branches, if you like, which might be one particular weapon system, or even one, one war. You know, the Vietnam War movement was an enormous thing. But it wasn’t to abolish all wars for all time, it was one aspect of the war system, one occasion if you like. But you know, when you say the whole thing, because it depends which forest you’re in. And to continue the metaphor of the tree. You know, there are many other challenges to human society, apart from the military, climate change the environment, gender inequality, poverty, pandemics. I mean, you go on and on. It’s a very big forest. And this is only one tree. But I think it’s a very important element.

Metta Spencer

Okay. No, that’s that’s exactly what you’re pointing not away from my point. But Right, exactly. To my point, that you know, what is Projects Save the World, which is what we’re doing right now, you know, that saving the world, whether we like to joke about it or take it seriously, the world needs to be

Colin Archer

saving yes, yes, right. Right. Right.

Metta Spencer

And what are we going to save it from? Well, we’ve got to save it from war. But we also have to save it from global warming,

Colin Archer

or other things. Yeah,

Metta Spencer

we have six, we have six things that we’re trying to save the world from: global warming. We’re not, so far, we haven’t gone in to save the world from plastic in the oceans. We’ll have to leave that for somebody else. But we’ve got six. And that’s enough to keep us busy.

Colin Archer

That’ll keep you busy. Yeah, for sure.

Metta Spencer

We’ve got global warming, famine, pandemics, radioactive contamination from something like Chernobyl or something, and cyber risks. And to make these all happen, we have to have some changes in governance and in civil society and in the economy. So some of these changes, enabling measures are really crucial to us. But the heart and soul of the whole thing is that if we divert our spending from weapons of war into these other six global things, it would be it would solve a whole bunch of problems. And I think, frankly, I think that when people are talking about changing military spending, part of the Congress session ought to be: What are we going to create jobs in these other fields to do? and we should be doing more economic research and planning how to specifically divert money from, say tanks and bombs and so on to particular changes that need to be made in in these other areas. including more concrete proposals for how to take, you know this number of dollars out of this budget and put it over in this other one

Colin Archer

Yeah, well, you remember the work of Seymour Melman, for example, who was a pioneer in this, this very field. And there are people, you know, dotted around who are working a bit on this. But I think it’s important to say that simply reducing a military budget, or even just cutting off one, one weapons program, for example, like the F 35, around which there’s been a lot of peace movement activity, or around a particular whole system, like nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons or killer robots, you know, these are all aspects of the disarmament element of the peace movement. That’s only one stage because governments can easily say, Oh, right. $20 billion, that’s great. We can use that, we’ll we’ll put it into roadbuilding. Or we’ll put it into the conventional military, you know, instead of the nuclear, or they’ll just give it away and tax cuts. You know, it’s by no means automatic that simply because you win one battle by reducing the spending on a piece of the military system, that it goes into the good stuff that you also want to do. And then then there’s a competition between different fields, is it more important to put it into green energy production? Or poverty reduction, production or reduction? Is it more important to invest in good education for girls, or black lives matter? You know, so it’s difficult for a movement to come up with one plan that everybody will get behind, because everybody’s got a different idea about what the good stuff is. So that is why we’ve left the campaign as a rather open space for particular groups, and Coalition’s particularly, to make the case in their own way for their own priorities in their own political space. And I think that’s been quite successful. If we had said, it’s got to be this, it’s got to be 10%. And it’s got to be spent on climate, you know, it would have been too, too restrictive. So that’s the way things worked out with that particular campaign. But, you know, I’ve been involved in many campaigns in my life. You know, I had a life before the IPP as well. Depends how much time we’ve got to go into it. But that’s a good example of campaigning.

Metta Spencer

Yeah. Ah, okay. Well, no, you know, I never had this conversation about this before, I was not, I hadn’t thought about the, the idea that there had been a consideration of whether or not we wanted to specify where the money should go, that is taken out of military spending, or not, I just assumed that it was kind of overlooked, that we that it wasn’t specified. I wonder, you know, my notion is that we should have a coalition of movements, a social movement of social movements, work together, because if we got everybody on the same page, and and I get, I see your point, there’s your competition among, I don’t know what to do with this excess money that we’re going to have so much, I’m

Colin Archer

wearing my Santa Claus hat, this is not for nothing. It’s all about free gifts. But what do you do with the free gift? Yeah, anyhow?

Metta Spencer

Well, let’s think I would love to do more to, to try to integrate people and make people aware that these, these issues, these six global threats, are so interdependent, because if you work on it, any one of them, you really have to do make some progress with at least one of the others in order to have any success. And therefore, we ought to be aware of the fact that we’re all on the same team working on a system that needs to be changed. And the military spending is a very key part of it, to take care of an awful lot of it, but we have to think I think more about how to how to reallocate our priorities. And I’ve loved to see more interaction among leaders of different movements, to talk about how we really can cooperate rather than just compete for the these dollars that we’re going to say,

Colin Archer

Sure, I mean, there’s a competition for fundraising as well. I mean, that’s another kind of competition, you know, Christmas time, you get this enormous end of year, sort of avalanche of requests for financial support, and especially during this very difficult time of the pandemic and the and the economic impact of the pandemic, you know, which is it’s been having on on NGOs and movements, as well as you know, people of all kinds in health in education in the arts. suffering, and everybody competing to try and bring in more more cash. So it is it is hard. And I take your point about, you know, we should all be cooperating and we’ll be singing on the same page. But you know, my experience of coalition building is that it’s extremely difficult. There have been attempts like the World Social Forum, which is still going, in fact, and they’re going to have a big meeting online in January. I don’t know if you know about that, but might be worth tuning into, because that’s one of the areas where so many different sectors all come together to pull their critiques of the system we’re in and to share plans. But whether, you know, it’s very difficult for that huge meeting to produce a sort of agreed plan. We had this challenge at The Hague in 1999. We could spend a moment on that perhaps, I don’t know. Would that be interesting to talk about?

Metta Spencer

Yes, but flesh out your your comment about the World Social Forum’s January meeting, because I was not aware of tha. I thought, in a way, that the World Social Forum is kind of on the ropes that they have not been flourishing the last few years. So I’m glad to know that there’s one January, we’re near. On top of that,

Colin Archer

I think I think you’re right that it is somewhat on the ropes. But I mean, it was at its at its height, you know, those huge meetings in Porto Alegre, and in other cities around the world, it was a terrific thing with hundreds of 1000s of people or was or even a million in India, I can’t even remember the numbers, but they had really big it was a massive mobilization, you know, beginning in Seattle, at the time of the WTO, and so on. But I think it became a bit unwieldy. And a lot of people said, well, we’re putting money into this. We’re bringing people from across the world, we’re spending money on airfares, and, you know, that’s got its ecological footprint as well. And is it producing anything? And I mean, there were a lot of, you know, grand statements that came out. But in terms of real working together, I’m not sure that, you know, it’s proven that it was very helpful. And I think that’s why you haven’t heard about it, because there hasn’t been nearly so much for us. And I think there won’t be as many I mean, there’ll be maybe a few 100 on this zoom call, which is probably enough for a zoom call. But there won’t be 10s of 1000s, you know, but the circumstances are very special. And these things come and go. And it can be that if there’s a big mobilization for some particular reason around something. Donald Trump was an excellent mobilizer because everybody hated him. And so wherever he went, there’ll be a huge demonstration. So that, in a way is proof that our movements and not just the peace movement, but particularly the peace movement, I think, tends to be very reactive. Whenever there’s a war, it’s good for the peace movement, because we all mobilize and we’re out in the streets, and we’re shouting with our placards and banners and making a big fuss. But when there isn’t a war, like when Obama was in office, and things look slightly better, you know, it demoralizes us and demobilizes us. So who knows what will happen with Mr. Biden, but you know, that’s a more speculative discussion, and I’m sure you’ve got other experts from the US to talk to about that.

Metta Spencer

And Canadians

Colin Archer

and Canadians.Yeah, you’re very close. Yeah.

Metta Spencer

Everybody in the world is speculating on what’s going to happen. Yeah,

Colin Archer

right. Right.

Metta Spencer

Uh, huh. You wanted to talk about the the the the meeting in The Hague? Sure, I have to admit this — that’s one I didn’t go to. Haha. I’m not sure that there’s anything still lingering from an agenda that was set there. Would you say that that was in any sense a turning point?

Colin Archer

Well, yes, in some ways, I think it was perhaps not in the way that was intended at the very beginning because it was 1999. Right. And it was coming up to the Millennium and everybody thought we must do something big. And it turned out that it was the 100 year anniversary of the centenary of the first Hague peace conference, that was really the very first international intergovernmental conference, to make a plan for peace that wasn’t just about dividing up the spoils after a war, like we’d had at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and so on, or even Treaty of Versailles. But, but 1899 was the turning point in that way. And then of course, there was 1907, the second one. And although it wasn’t a full success, it was worth celebrating. So we gathered a huge coalition of NGOs, from the human rights to the environment, to women’s groups, and centrally the peace movements. And we got 10,000 people to The Hague in 1999. And we produced this Manifesto, which is a really excellent kind of roadmap to piece in 50 small chapters. And, you know, we felt like we were giving birth to a whole number of new content. campaigns and Coalition’s, for example, on small arms. And on the campaign for the International Criminal Court, which was successful. We have, we now have an International Criminal Court. However, you know, a mere two years later, we had 911. And we, you know, we know the rest of the story, it did not go in the direction of world peace, to put it mildly. So in that sense, it was a turning point, but we didn’t expect it to be. However, it was a smaller turning point in the peace movement in that it gave rise to a very important new coalition, the global camp coalition on peace, education, global campaign for peace education, which still exists to this day, and has a really excellent website. And the best newsletter, I know, on peace education, definitely worth subscribing to that with all kinds of references and resources from people beavering away quietly under the media radar, mostly around the world. And so that was the first time that we had a campaign of an organized kind that was designed not just to have some small programs of peace education, but to actually introduce it into the official education programs in each country. And there’s been varying success in that ever since, of course, the militarized climate that we’ve been living through in the last 10 years or 20 years really has not helped. But the campaign exists. And, you know, there’s a lot of great work going on there. So I think we should be pleased that the Hague conference gave rise to that. And then as I mentioned, subsequently, you know, we were focused on the economic side of things, and the military spending.

Metta Spencer

Okay, well, now, the wonderful thing about IPB was that at least aspirationally, it’s already oriented toward a transnational global sense of bringing together peace groups. And under, you know, at least we had some contact with each other, and very crucial in being in occupying the place where the convergence occurred. That is, you probably had more contact with global peace groups around the world than anybody else. I know. I don’t have that much contact. And I don’t know, in fact, I sometimes wonder, for some countries, maybe there just isn’t anything like a peace movement. But I’m told that in even the Soviet, you know, space or post-Soviet space, there, there are peace groups, and that we should be more in touch. And I’m not in touch with them. How can I do that better?

Colin Archer

Well, let me just say that there are dozens and dozens of peace internationals. It’s not as if the IPP is the only one however, the International Peace Bureau was and is probably the most general. It tries to be the sort of big tent, if you like, with a whole wide range of organizations under its auspices. And so running, that was a real privilege in the sense that I was in touch with organizations not only all over the world, but across very many different sectors, both professional, both in terms of their ideologies, their relationships to political parties, to the parts of the military tree that I was describing that they focused on some on nuclear, some on arms, trade, some on peace, education, some on peace, history, some on gender, human rights, and so on. The whole, the whole shebang, it was really too much. If you look in the Housmans’ database, I don’t know if you’re aware of the Housmans database, are you? Or the Housmans diary to get hold of it?

Metta Spencer

So that fella who runs it at you know, maybe it’s because of the pandemic, he’s not really finding as quickly as we’d like, but we’re trying to get sure to include all of those. Those links in our rather extensive mailing list — we do have a mailing list of emails that I try to send out posters — are sort of a newsletter now. And then the next one, I

Colin Archer

Yes, well, they have 1400 groups 1400. Now they used to have twice as much. That is an indicator that the peace movement is no longer as strong as it was. You know, it’s very important that people understand that the movement goes in waves. And the waves are very often related to what the governments are up to. And as I said, when there’s a war, the peace movement flourishes because it stimulates so much opposition. But also it depends on the mood of the times, you know, the ’60s, you know, there was a sort of very idealistic time. And there was a whole biodiversity of different peace activities and and social change in a more general sense. And then we had retrenchment. We had Reagan and Thatcher and all of those kinds of things. And then then we had, you know, Bush and the Iraq War, where there’s enormous demonstration 10 million people on the streets. On one weekend, I think it’s the biggest demonstration ever 15th of February 2003, you know, and then we deal with Trump again. And you know, so the thing goes in waves, and it may well come back up. My internet connection is unstable, perhaps I’m talking too much. But if I if I disappear, you know why?

Metta Spencer

Yeah. Okay. Well, that’s certainly true. And I’m very mindful of that. Because running Peace Magazine, what we see is, if there’s going to be a, I remember exactly when the Iraq war began, boy, did we have an increase in circulation, everybody was calling in and saying they were to subscribe to Peace Magazine.

Colin Archer

Right now. That’s how it goes. That’s how it goes. So we’re in a bit of a downturn now. And of course, environment, climate, you know, is probably the biggest thing with Black Lives Matter, maybe, you know, a second top priority. So you had an interview about Nagorno Karabakh. I mean, we’ve got a big crisis in Ethiopia, you know, but those places don’t have big peace movements, they have smaller groups and brave individuals speaking out, who usually get shut up pretty quickly. It is very different in the developing world. And I think we’ve often had a tendency to look at the peace movement through a lens, that’s mainly, let’s say, global north, mainly, you know, Anglo Saxon, very often. And so I’ve been very conscious to try and spread things out and develop a really global network, certainly, while I was at the IPB. But it’s it’s a very difficult thing to do with tiny resources. I mean, you need to be at least as big as Greenpeace, if not as big as General Motors, you know, if you want to really organize things on a big scale,

Metta Spencer

you also undoubtedly have strong memories of especially influential and effective leaders in these different countries. Oh, gosh, yeah. I know, you stay in touch with many of these people.

Colin Archer

Quite a few. Yeah, not always the leaders, though. I hesitate to name names, it’s very invidious. I have done some writing about the IPB in the period that I was running it and even before, you know, the longer history, but I tended to avoid giving credit to individuals. You know, it’s it’s a very tricky business. I’m more interested in organizations and in general trends.

Metta Spencer

Now, in terms of your own activity there and Leeds — are there local groups, so you participate in Are you still into the transnational movement?

Colin Archer

Well, I said, when I retired, I’m going to be local and transnational. And that’s that’s the way it is. But not only local, also national, you know, there are, I always say there are five levels, five geographical levels, local, regional, national, regional, again, and global. And so I, I’m active with with Leeds, I’m active with Yorkshire in terms of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but also with the National Organization movement for the abolition of war, which was founded by Bruce Kent, and is a direct successor, if you like to The Hague appeal, it was inspired by the Hague appeal in 99. And then I’m connected in various ways through international peace bureau networks and and other things.

Metta Spencer

Of course, at the moment, Brexit is still

Colin Archer

just in the balance, yeah,

Metta Spencer

up in the air, you know, the negotiations, and they still even in, in overtime right now for for negotiations, I believe. And I don’t quite understand what difference Brexit will make on military policy. For example, will it have anything to do with any change of policy with respect to these nuclear subs, these Trident things because the British Trident seems to go on forever and ever. Will it make any difference in for the peace movement in general?

Colin Archer

Well, the short answer is no. You know, the EU is not really a military alliance. It’s true. It has an involvement with promoting the arms industry in those countries from an economic point of view and so on. But, you know, the alliance that Britain is part of is NATO. And there is certainly no sign that Britain is going to pull out of NATO; it’s a very loyal member of NATO. And you know, when when the US president says jump, you jump, so that’s not going to change much. The kind of changes that Brexit might affect are to do with cooperation between police forces across Europe in tackling terrorism and organized crime; we’re no longer going to have access to the European databases on crime. You know, that’s only marginally a peace issue. Terrorism, yes. But it’s more about policing. So that’s that’s that as for Trident, well, it’s it’s UK policy to have nuclear weapons to have a nuclear deterrent. The old one was getting rusty, so they put a 200 billions into making a new one. So we’re going to have spanking new submarines full of nuclear submarine, a new nuclear weapons that can, you know, destroy whole countries. And, you know, it’s all totally useless. And so we’re campaigning against that and to transfer the money into something more useful, but it’s not affected by Brexit.

Metta Spencer

Okay, but now, it might be affected if Scotland secedes, so to speak?

Colin Archer

Well, that’s an interesting whole discussion. Yes, you’re right. I mean, the Scottish National Party has a policy of opposing Trident, which is based in Scottish waters. And the expectation, let’s say, among peace movement activists is that if Scotland becomes independent, they will close down the base. And they say here, you can have your nuclear weapons back

Metta Spencer

now.

Colin Archer

Or, you know, there was a chap called John Ainsley who sadly died not long ago, who was one of the key organizers in Scottish END. And he did a report basically saying that the English in this case, not the British, but the English, don’t have a suitable deepwater port to put the thing in, ergo, you know, Scotland will get rid of Britain’s nuclear weapons. Now. I have a slightly perverse line on this, which is, I’m not sure that it will necessarily get rid of British nuclear weapons, because they could say, all right, well, we’re scrapping the submarines, we’ll we’ll put them back on aircraft. You know, they had them before they had these freefall bombs. Now, I think the reason that they’re not keen to do that, of course, it would cost a huge amount of money to do all that transfer. But you know, if it’s deemed to be necessary, I’m sure they would. It’s just that aircraft are more vulnerable to attack than submarines are. There is evidence that even submarines now you know, with new technologies can be found out deep in the waters of the Atlantic or ever, in a way that they were not detectable before. But, you know, this is a subject that’s not been discussed much. But I suspect that if push came to shove, the Ministry of Defense might well say, well, we’re going to have a change of delivery platform, as they say, and we’ll put it on aircraft. You won’t know which ones they are, it’ll all be hidden away in the air bases. But we’ll still be able to, you know, get rid of Moscow at a stroke. So the problem is the underlying attitudes, I don’t think it’s the particular weapon systems. It’s about the well, the theory of deterrence — does it hold up? Does it actually deter anyone? And it’s also about Britain’s status in the world. Why do we have to have nuclear weapons, but other major states don’t. It’s about the net. And then the NATO Alliance, it’s about Anglo-American dominance. It’s about the Five Eyes. It’s about a whole post-imperial legacy, which we’re really struggling with, and to have a government like Boris Johnson’s in power, you know, constantly referring to the glories of Dunkirk and D day and all that stuff. I mean, it doesn’t help. It doesn’t help move us on to a more realistic appreciation of what Britain’s status in the world should be. But I’m afraid we’re stuck with it, even with the excellent Ban Treaty, which everyone’s supporting and applauding, and we’re getting ready to commemorate the entry into force on January 22. But you know, nobody in the Conservative Party is really listening, it seems. Now sometimes there are underground movements of opinion, which are not detectable immediately, but then gradually, a change of opinion begins to operate. And that’s what we’re hoping for. But I think that’s another whole discussion, and you’ve discussed the boundaries here with other people I know and I wouldn’t want to get too drawn into that.

Metta Spencer

Yes, yes. Yesterday I had a conversation with Walter Dorn, who had just given testimony to Senate committee, really about chemical weapons, but he managed to sneak in several references. And getting some of the senators I think engaged with the idea

Colin Archer

excellent. Well, yes,

Metta Spencer

we have work to do on promoting that for sure. locally and

Colin Archer

yeah, for sure.

Metta Spencer

You’re doing your part. Well,

Colin Archer

now Yeah, yeah.

Metta Spencer

Without a Santa hat on Christmas tree.

Colin Archer

It’s a Christmas tree.

Metta Spencer

Oh wonderful.

Colin Archer

It’s a tiny little Christmas tree very flat. That came through my letterbox.

Metta Spencer

It’s wonderful and

Colin Archer

nice to chat to you. We can do it another time on the subject or whatever you like.

Metta Spencer

Absolutely. Thank you. Well, Happy Christmas to you Christmas and

Colin Archer

let’s say the world next next year.

Metta Spencer

Every every year now. Bye.

Bye Bye now.

Metta Spencer

Okay, you too. Bye Bye.

Adam Wynne (Intro/Outro)

This conversation is one of the weekly series talk about saving the world produced by Peace Magazine, and Project Save the World. Please visit our website at Tosavetheworld.ca where you can sign the platform for survival. A list of 25 public policy proposals that if enacted, would greatly reduce the risk of six global threats to humankind. Come back next week for another discussion of a serious global issue.

T144. Novichok

Posted on February 25, 2021July 9, 2021 by Project Save The World

T144. Novichok

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 144
Panelist: Walter Dorn
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 17 December 2020
Date Transcribed: 1 January 2021
Transcription: Otter. Ai
Transcription Review and Edit: Adam Wynne

Metta Spencer 0:00

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. And today I get to have a conversation with a very dear friend, Walter Dorn. Walter is a professor at the Canadian Forces college here in Toronto, which is kind of a graduate school for military people. But he calls himself a sheep in Wolf’s clothing, which is a wonderful term for somebody who is an expert on military matters, but really is a peace worker in every sense of the word. So it must be a real matter of cognitive dissonance to be teaching in a place where the whole purpose of the things seems a little bit incongruous. At but he matches and and he’s one of my very favorite, and one of the strongest peace workers in Canada, if not the world, works for the UN a lot. Hi, Walter. Good morning. Hi,

Walter Dorn 0:59

Metta. Good to be with you.

Metta Spencer 1:00

And I love your fireplace. So we’re going to have a fireside chat more charming, cozy. I will tell people that you are. You’re originally a chemistry graduate students when I first met you, many, many years ago. And and you did a PhD, I believe you got interested in chemical weapons. Right, and –

Walter Dorn 1:25

after about 10 years on arms control, I shifted to peacekeeping. But I kept that interest in monitoring sensing. And so the technologies are an interest for me across the range of peace and environmental issues.

Metta Spencer 1:39

There’s there’s stuff that’s been going on regarding chemical weapons in the last week or two. Some I’ve seen a lot of emails flying past me that I haven’t really unpacked. So I’d like for you to talk to me about some of the controversies about chemical weapons that have been taking place recently. And then everybody, all the peace workers in the world now are preoccupied with the challenge of trying to get our respective governments to sign on to and ratify the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons – the TPNW. And I know that you had a an opportunity to speak to a Senate committee in the last two or three days, and that you use this opportunity to make your plug for Canada to get on board with that, which they certainly should. So we’ll talk about both of those, if you will.

Walter Dorn 2:47

So the news is that the Canadian Parliament is now considering an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, which was first passed in 1995. And the reason that they’re considering this amendment is that the treaty itself was amended. Earlier this year, provisions came into force to add four new classes of chemical weapons to Schedule 1 of the chemicals which Schedule 1 or those chemicals which can only be used as chemical weapons. They don’t have other purposes, and they pose a higher risk. They include the traditional chemicals like mustard gas, and sarin and VX and, and ricin. But the new agents three of the new classes of agents are Novichoks, which are agents that Russia is alleged and almost certainly did use, both against a former Soviet agent when he was in refuge in Britain, and in the Salisbury attack. Both Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned by this nerve agent called Novichoks. It’s actually a class of agents. And the other use was against Alex Navalny. And when he’s when he was brought to Germany, after being poisoned, they detected nobody Chuck in his blood. So it’s quite clear that this is a contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of course Russia has denied it. But Russia did agree to put these chemicals into the annex on chemicals of the Chemical Weapons Convention. So now we have four new categories added to the Chemical Weapons Convention. And the Government of Canada didn’t need to amend the legislation. But I thought that it was prudent to do so. And so I looked at the amendments, said that it was it wasn’t necessary, but it was still a positive thing. Yesterday, the committee to which I was testifying, adopted the amendments, and is now sending it back to the full Senate or will shortly send it back to the full Senate. And then when it goes through a third reading in both the House and the Senate, then it will pass as a new amended bill for Canada.

Metta Spencer 5:27

Aha, okay. Well, that makes that’s logical to me. Because you said at the outset, was already forbidden, right? It would be covered by anybody’s definition of what a chemical weapon is, I presume I don’t even know how you would define a chemical. How do they define chemical weapons? What does the treaty basically say is possible? And what is not? Is it clear that the criteria are unmistakable – that you can tell for sure whether something would be covered or not?

Walter Dorn 6:10

Right, so that the definition and the convention of chemical weapons is very broad. It includes both the harm that’s inflicted, and the intention to do harm. So it’s like a legal definition involving both intent and actual act. The schedules are there for verification purposes, and to help better define what is being considered. So Schedule 1, as mentioned, are just chemicals, compounds that are used as chemical weapons and don’t have other purposes. And the fact that Russia allowed those chemicals to go on to Schedule 1 means that the OPCW, that’s the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons, which is based in The Hague can now do better inspections, and better testing and verification mechanisms for those agents. And I’m sure that in their subsequent inspections in Russia, and I do hope there will be a challenge inspection of Russia, that they that they will look for those agents and figure out where they’re produced in Russia.

Metta Spencer 7:21

I guess I’m not clear about what new say this schedule, the the things they added on, what are these like chemical formulas or something that would enable you to say, anything with this stuff in it is definitely forbidden?

Walter Dorn 7:38

That’s correct. So you’re allowed to have small amounts for research, they have to be consistent with the research purpose. You can have them for prophylactic purposes, protecting yourself and testing gas masks and that sort of thing. But those have to be very small quantities and they have to be reported to the OPCW. So now Russia, if they do have Novichoks will be obliged, under the Chemical Weapons Convention to report any, any not stockpile. It’s not even stockpile, but any quantities, small quantities in a fridge somewhere, where they store for research purposes. And hopefully, they’ve learned their lesson and the world is is called them out now. On the use of chemical weapons against at least two targets. And this, this, adding it to the schedule will make verification better. ,

Metta Spencer 8:36

Yeah, I have often wondered how, how you would do verification for a thing like that anyway, it’s hard enough, if you’re talking about a dump with barrels, 1000s of barrels of chemicals, that, that it’s, you know, you might be able to spot those by sniffing or I don’t know how you do it. But but the notion that something as tiny as like a half a teaspoon full of something would be, you know, you could kill a bunch of people.

Walter Dorn 9:06

Right? So

Metta Spencer 9:07

how can you possibly it really, really expect to do verification?

Walter Dorn 9:15

So you would run on clues? And we already know that Russia has used Novichok. So then it would be what laboratories might have them in their inventory. What does the intelligence say? Other intelligence agencies can use their electronic intercept and other means to be able to give clues to international organizations when they do the verification. So it’ll be a cat and mouse game, and in many cases, the mouse will win. But the more tools and the more provisions in the convention that allow for verification, the better the cat will be catching the violations of the convention. So I would I still think there’s a positive. And you might not catch all the vials, they might be in some former KGB lab, now FSB, which is, which is handling the chemical side of their activities, but at least you can begin to search for them and make it more difficult for a country to or or an organization to hide them.

Metta Spencer 10:24

How difficult is it to make? And are there, I’m asking now not only about novichok, but other chemicals that might also be extremely lethal and very tiny. Could… is there anything of that of that magnitude or that importance? Lethality – that I could make in my kitchen.

Walter Dorn 10:50

They

want you to tell me,

like, I’m always hesitant to talk about this. But I think it’s sufficiently in the literature, that that we can say that many of these chemicals are very easy to make some sometimes two steps away from from common products that can be ordered. There was a case that a Schedule 1 chemical was produced in near Montreal early this year and sent to the White House and to addresses in Texas. That was using castor beans. So that information is out there, what what we have to be also be aware as it’s the handling of those things, that really requires the extra expertise. Because what when when you’re making them if you tried it in your kitchen, I wouldn’t recommend eating your kitchen or, or doing any preparation your kitchen for a long time afterwards. So they’re asked that usually you do them in fume hoods and special flasks and that sort of thing. So in that sense, it’s a deterrent for people to make a chemical weapons. It’s like, I guess it happens with other things like even explosives. People kill themselves just playing around with the stuff during it, trying to build weapons sometimes.

Exactly.

Metta Spencer 12:08

Okay, well, so this is a good step, then. Well, of course, actually, one one wonders what, what goes on in the minds of the people who have been using those things, I think, um, I don’t know, anybody who would dispute the, the assumption that Putin has to know about this and have approved of it, or it wouldn’t have happened period. And so this is Putin’s own doing. And why? He doesn’t like the guy, but do the, you know, I think the fact that they get caught, and that for example, this this polonium stuff, they found the traces of where it had been on airplanes and hotels and, and they they could even tell where it had been transported. Right.

Walter Dorn 13:05

And it’s so the coffee cup was it was laden with the residue of the polonium and the radiation.

Metta Spencer 13:12

if he’s having them use a poison that is so easy to identify, and so uniquely Russian, and something that nobody could have done in their own kitchen. I couldn’t make a plate. Maybe you could get polonium, or Novichok, but I don’t think very many people could. Is he trying to send a message? Is he doing this to say, you see what I can do so watch out? Or is he dumb enough to think that he could get away with it and not get caught?

Walter Dorn 13:53

Well, I think both are plausible. And one is probably the first the second idea that you propose is that you get away with it is what he would want. But if if he doesn’t get away with it, and it is identified, it still sends a message. So there’s a kind of, he can benefit from in both categories, the first category of eliminating an enemy through saying there was some sort of poisonous substance that he must have eaten somewhere. And then if not then making other people scared. But I don’t think that the Russians thought that Navalny would get to a German hospital where they had the technologies and the OPCW was involved in as well in getting those samples to labs in France and Sweden, which both confirm the Novichok was in them. So the net is negative for Putin. But if he likes notoriety, then he’s got it. But he also also seeks plausible deniability. And he continues to say that, that this was not instigated by the Russian government.

Metta Spencer 15:10

Well, you know, I don’t think anybody in the world would believe him. It is the most absurd, right? I mean, if there’s nobody else could do it, and everything that goes on in Russia that if, if it’s going to be of that magnitude, I don’t think there’s any Russian who believes that, that something like the FSB will go off on their own and freelance on a thing like that. So I think it’s absurd. Now, then, if, in any case, why would he sign on to having an additional protocol or whatever? Saying that Novichok ins specifically is forbidden? Does he intend to straight now? not use it anymore? Or are the terms of this new protocol or whatever it’s called? Such that it’ll, it’ll be easier to have an inspection. an impromptu very quick inspection?

Walter Dorn 16:17

Mm hmm. I hope, I hope that governments do that. I mean, that when, when we were working on the Chemical Weapons Convention, I was both involved with Parliamentarians for Global Action and Science for Peace. And, and you may recall, we even did a a conference, where we had a Soviet representative come in 1988, to look at chemical weapons, we held it in Croft Chapter House – Canada’s oldest chemistry laboratory – at the University of Toronto, we, we were really hoping that this mechanism of anywhere, anytime inspections, could be come part of international practice, as well, in addition to being law, and the nations have been really hesitant to, to carry out challenge inspections. So now is an opportunity. And I really hope that nations summon the courage to do it.

Metta Spencer 17:08

What does the text of the treaty say?

Walter Dorn 17:12

it’s going to be done at any time since the entry into force the treaty in 1997. And some nations have even said, Look, do a trial challenge inspection and come and visit any lab you want. And and then the OPCW has to designate it and then there’s a process called managed access. But it still is based on the principle of anywhere, anytime. I mean, it’s short notice, it’s like 24, or 48 hour notices and that sort of thing. But the world needs to get in the habit. And I would hope that countries like Canada can say, Please try it out on us, so that we can get in the habit of creating that kind of transparency in the world. So becomes even harder for violators like Russia, to turn down the such requests.

Metta Spencer 18:00

The Russians say that they had already destroyed their arsenal of chemical weapons?

Walter Dorn 18:06

They had, they not only said it, but it was verified by the OPCW. So we know that some 30,000 tons of chemical weapons were destroyed in Russia. They asked for this 10 year extension after the first 10 years they hadn’t completed. And the Americans also asked for that extension, and the Americans haven’t even completed all that work. But they destroyed within 20,000 tons. So we’re well on the way we have 98% of declared stocks are now destroyed.

Metta Spencer 18:39

You think they’re really destroyed, but you’re talking about big gallon drums. Right? Right. Not you’re not talking about a teaspoon full.

Walter Dorn 18:47

That’s right. That’s why the 98% is in regard to the weight of the substances and not the existence of it. So you know, there might be undeclared substances, they could be in small quantities. And just shifting to Syria for a second. Syria did destroy over 1000 metric tons of chemical weapons. That is they transferred it for destruction and most of it was destroyed on on a ship, an American ship, in the Mediterranean. But the Syrian government gave up its strategic arsenal. Now it still has tactical that is small amounts that it has been using against the population. But the threat against other countries such as Israel was very much diminished by serious signing under under Russian pressure and American pressure, signing the Chemical Weapons Convention. And even though it hasn’t fulfilled all the obligations of the convention, and they’ll be OPCW still has matters that issues with serious declarations, it still was a major step forward. And now we have a basis on which you can send in inspectors and you can challenge them their veracity rather than a nation saying, well, we have a right to have those many chemical weapons, and you have no right to even question it because there’s no legal basis for the US to question it because we never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria did sign it. And now we can hold, try and hold them accountable.

Metta Spencer 20:17

Well, now there was one case where I think the OPCW inspectors went into a place where there was a I think in a road wasn’t there, there was some sort of chemical, like a pit or something on the road, a pothole on the road where a chemical weapon had landed, and, and they were able to detect that it was a chemical weapon. But I believe the OPCW doesn’t say who they think did it. I mean, you know, you could guess. But isn’t that true that they tell you whether it is a chemical weapon or not, but they don’t actually charge anybody with a violation.

Walter Dorn 21:03

So at the time of those joint investigative mechanisms, with the UN and the OPCW in Syria, that was true, that the mandate of the OPCW, was limited to declaring that a chemical weapon had been used, and not by whom. But fortunately, the OB CW has refined its methods and the conference of state parties is agreed that the opposite of you can now name the perpetrators. So they’re now going back. And looking at the evidence, which, which was pretty clear at the time that it was a Syrian government. And they did detect nerve agents in some of the artillery shells that landed. And you can tell from the angle of the artillery from where it was launched. Because you know, if it lands this way, it’s very different from if it lands that way. And so there’s there’s good evidence from whether launching was in government or non governmental controlled areas, in this case, governmental control, there is in the case of what I think you’re referring to is the Ghouta attack and the basis for the OPCW, is it being strengthened. So it’s one of the few areas of arms control, where we actually have seen the international mechanisms strengthened in recent years, as opposed to other areas where, you know, we saw so many treaties, which were repudiated by the United States under the Trump administration. And the only other positive development is that we now have a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that will enter into force next month.

Metta Spencer 22:38

Well, now here. Let’s we have just about 10 minutes or less to talk about that. Because I think I want to know what you said yesterday, you were before what committee?

Walter Dorn 22:52

The Standing Committee of the Senate on Foreign Affairs and International Trade?

Metta Spencer 22:59

Mm hmm. And they invited you to come and tell them things, or you asked to or what?

Walter Dorn 23:03

No, I actually don’t know how I got the invitation. But I was invited to provide testimony. And before me, somebody from the OPCW testified, and before that there were governmental representatives, and the Chair of the Biological and Chemical Defense Review Committee.

Metta Spencer 23:20

I thought you were talking about the TPNW yesterday, or did you sneak that in? On top of the things that you were asked to talk about?

Walter Dorn 23:28

Right. So some of the senators had raised the TPNW during their, during their addresses in the Senate. And I was asked a question about the TPNW. But also in my opening remarks, I made a point of drawing the larger lessons from the Chemical Weapons Convention, I said, we need to strengthen arms control, we need to strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention to provide similar sorts of mechanisms that the Chemical Weapons Convention has: anywhere, anytime inspections, I said, we need to create a Nuclear Weapons Convention, which can do for nuclear weapons, what the Chemical Weapons Convention has done for chemical weapons. And that a step in the direction towards a nuclear free world was the ban treaty, but it has no verification and compliance mechanisms. So we needed to strengthen that and that Canada should support that initiative towards arms control. And then I’ll I’ll throw it here the third proposal, which is that we should give the World Health Organization, the same sort of inspection capabilities that we give to the OPCW, that is the WHO should be able to do anywhere, anytime inspections, without right or refusal, through managed access to facilities where there may have been early outbreaks. And the world would be much better informed about the types of infectious diseases that maybe man caused or maybe natural, and that we can have a better information very early on. So those were all lessons from the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. And the tpnw w Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons was one of the points that I made. And if you want to talk about that, or any other broader issues that come out of the Chemical Weapons Convention implementation, I’m quite happy to talk about those. You know,

Metta Spencer 25:16

I talked to somebody once, who said that he had, in a conversation with Gorbachev received some information that there was a Russian plan or Soviet plan, back in the day to actually use I think, smallpox or something, in some sort of weaponry that this was not. I mean, you’re referring to something – the use of biological weapons – that are designed to make people sick and die from, like viruses or, you know, I don’t, I don’t imagine many of us even lose any sleep thinking about that possibility that people would actually do something like try to cause a pandemic in another country? Because it seems so implausible that that anybody would, would do that. I mean, it just wouldn’t have wouldn’t have even occurred to me. But apparently, this was really a game plan.

Walter Dorn 26:26

At some Well, yeah, it’s not rational, and no one should do it or think that there’s any benefit from it. But there are crazy people and crazy groups that have planned it. Aum Shinrikyo was planning it for Japan, they had sheep in Australia that they were using to get for testing on with anthrax. The ricin that was created by Montreal, a woman or dual citizen of France and Canada, she developed the ricin, which is a toxin produced by a biological system, but it is a chemical weapon. It’s a chemical. And it’s in Schedule 1 of the Chemical Weapons Convention and mailed that and there being about half a dozen cases where there have been mailings of chemical and biological weapons in the United States. One of them done almost certainly by a US Defense scientist who sent anthrax, which the FBI can be certain that came from the flask in his laboratory, or was derived from that flask. And that anthrax was sent to Patrick Leahy, who was a Democratic Senator, and various other people and mailed from different locations by Bruce Ivins who committed suicide just as he found out that he was the number one suspect by the FBI.

Metta Spencer 28:02

Was this the thing that happened? Right after 9/11?

Walter Dorn 28:05

Correct, October.

Metta Spencer 28:10

I think in our own minds, we probably figured that these two tragedies were connected.

Walter Dorn 28:17

Well, he labeled the envelope saying Death to America, Allah is Great, but it was it was one of those great framings of using biological weapons and trying to frame it on Islamic extremists. So there are definite lessons and we have to keep that one alive. It’s not just a conspiracy theory. It has all the elements of a conspiracy theory. But it’s very definitively proven in my mind beyond reasonable doubt. But you can certainly say beyond the balance of probabilities, that this defense scientist who was seeking to increase the funding and got increased funding for anthrax research. After that attack, which killed five people.

Metta Spencer 29:00

He wasn’t just a crazy guy. He had a special motive. I mean, it’s crazy. Yes, I mean, no normal human being would think that way. But, but it was a motivated craziness. That

Walter Dorn 29:15

is the allegation that the FBI has for his attack. And there’s lots of good evidence provided in the FBI report, which is now available online. And the scientist also loved puzzles. And he put into some of the framing material that he did some of the puzzles that he got out of a book, Gödel, Escher, and Bach, which was a very popular decades ago for looking at how to do encryption and looking at the patterns in life. So he had a deviously deranged mind. Yeah,

Metta Spencer 29:26

this has been extremely interesting. Take care of Walter. Bye bye.

Walter Dorn 29:57

Cheers.

Adam Wynne (Intro/Outro) 30:00

This conversation is one of the weekly series Talk About Saving the World produced by Peace Magazine and Project Save the World. Please visit our website at to save the world.ca where you can sign the platform for survival. A list of 25 public policy proposals that if enacted, would greatly reduce the risk of six global threats to humankind. Come back next week for another discussion of a serious global issue.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Category: Transcriptions

WRS6. Ann Swidler on Africa NGOs