Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 284
Panelists: Frank von Hippel and Roald Sagdeev.
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired: 6 July 2021.
Date Transcribed and Verified: 30 November 2021.
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: Adam Wynne.

Synopsis: Roald Sagdeev led scientists in Gorbachev’s USSR; Frank von Hippel was his counterpart in the US. They worked together to reduce the risk of nuclear war.

Please note this transcript has been edited. 

Metta Spencer  

I’m Metta Spencer. Did you know, there was a time when the Americans and the Soviets got along? And the scientists were good friends. And we need to think about those days. I have here with me, although they’re at their own computers, two very, very eminent scientists who were engaged with each other and with saving the world. I think we can owe a lot to both of them for their part in bringing the end into the Cold War. And I want to have a conversation today when these two men reminisce about the old days. Roald Sagdeev was in those days a Soviet scientist, and he was very active in the Committee of the Soviet Scientists, which interacted very much with another organization, an American group that was headed by Frank von Hippel. Now, Roald Sagdeev, many years ago, moved to the United States. So, he’s in Maryland right now, but has often been in touch with his old pal, Frank von Hippel. They recently celebrated the 100th anniversary of Sakharov, another scientist of that generation who was also probably even better known than they for his work as not only the father of the Russian hydrogen bomb, which was not exactly something I would celebrate, but also, he was very famous as a dissident. A very courageous man. So, he’s no longer with us, but these two men are. So hello, fellas. Roald Sagdeev, let’s ask you, if you will, to give us a pre-history of this historical period that we’re going to be reminiscing about. Will you tell us what was going on after Stalin died and bring us up to the 1980s? 

Roald Sagdeev  

Scientists contributed a lot to the nuclear era. And it is not surprising that those who were very involved in designing nuclear weapons were also great scientists of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. They were some of the first to tell the governments that the world might perish if policies were not changed. I remember I was a young scientist in the 1950s, just at the beginning of my career. Stalin had just passed away. At the time when I was about to graduate from the University of Moscow, I remember the great American nuclear physicist Leo Szilard tried to write a letter to Stalin to explain how dangerous life would be during the nuclear era. And he didn’t actually send this letter. Probably, Stalin was not the guy who would receive this letter in a kind manner. But a few years later, [Szilard] actually sent a letter to Khrushchev, the successor of Stalin. This was delivered to the hands of Khrushchev by Soviet scientists that he met at early meetings. And this led, actually, to a very interesting meeting in New York, when Khrushchev during his political visit, invited Leo Szilard to talk about nuclear dangers. And so, that was an interesting indication that sometimes governments try to hear what scientists would tell them. Similarly, on the Soviet side, Sakharov was the first who raised the alarm about the danger of nuclear tests and the radioactive contamination of the atmosphere. He wrote a number of letters to Khrushchev and equally on American side, my friend Frank von Hippel, did very important work with a very detailed analysis of this radioactive fallout and its dangers.  So, this call, coming from these two scientists, virtually created the process of negotiations. Khrushchev was involved, as was John F. Kennedy. And it ended with a very important treaty banning or partially banning nuclear tests, in the atmosphere, in the oceans, and in outer space. So that was the very first step at that time. 

Metta Spencer  

When was this organization founded? The Soviet Scientists… what was the name of the committee? 

Roald Sagdeev  

The Committee of Soviet Scientists to Prevent Nuclear War. It was established in the early 1980s, following the very difficult events when the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan in late 1979. And it actually interrupted all the regular contact, virtual contacts, and consultations on important issues between Soviets and the West and between the United States and its Allies. And I think that it was an understanding on both sides, that something has to be going on. Some kind of contacts, interaction, partially to create transparency, to prevent the accidental [use] or whatever will happen with nuclear weapons. And so, there was a creation of this group, under the auspices of the Soviet Academy of Scientists. That was a move which came on the Soviet side.

Metta Spencer  

The Union of Concerned Scientists had been around since almost the end of World War 2, right?

Frank von Hippel  

It was the Federation of American Scientists. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a different organization. 

Metta Spencer  

Pardon me. I’m sorry. I know better.

Frank von Hippel  

I was very interested to hear Roald explain that pre-history. Just one correction: Sakharov’s counterpart on the US-side was Linus Pauling, who was actually equally…. Later on, I just became involved in checking Sakharov’s calculations. But I became involved when we received a letter from the Committee of Soviet Scientists asking us whether we had changed our minds about the possibility of there being an effective defense against ballistic missiles. So, this was following President Reagan’s speech in March 1983, where he called on the US scientific community to pitch in and develop what became known as “Star Wars.” We responded that we hadn’t changed our minds. And we were invited over – the leadership of the Federation was invited – over to Moscow – and then we had a side trip to Tbilisi in Georgia over the Thanksgiving weekend in 1983 – to talk and to brainstorm about how to keep things from going out of control. And it was just after the scare about a possible nuclear war that had happened just earlier that same month.

Metta Spencer  

That Able Archer [83] thing? 

Frank von Hippel  

Able Archer [83], the NATO exercise. 

Metta Spencer  

You should explain it a little. 

Frank von Hippel  

This was one of a series of NATO exercises. And it was to end with a nuclear tabletop aspect of a US nuclear strike against Eastern Europe. I think the scenario must have been a Soviet invasion of Germany. It was more elaborate exercise than the previous exercises and the Soviets were worried that this was a real thing. Especially after Reagan had been calling the Soviet Union the evil empire. It was one of the near misses that we had of actually going from this nuclear confrontation into an actual nuclear war during the Cold War. They thought that the US might be preparing an attack on Eastern Europe. The Soviets actually started loading bombs, fighter bombers, and nuclear bombs in case. And there were discussions of preemption. Fortunately, NATO didn’t respond by escalating to the Soviet Union’s response. Therefore, the exercises ended without anything happening. 

Metta Spencer  

I think we’ve left out a few years there, because in between Stalin and the period you’re talking about, there was this buildup of tension, which we haven’t described. The fears arose in all parts of the world, that there would be a nuclear war, because there was a buildup of and the intention to install missiles closer and closer in Europe. And then we get to the period that you’ve just talk to me about in 1983. 

Frank von Hippel  

There was an earlier crisis in 1962 – the Cuban Missile Crisis – which was perhaps the closest we got, but then there was a long period of detente through the 1970s. And then in 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; and then with Reagan coming in with this – you know – brave hawkish view, we had this second crisis in the early 1980s, which I guess peaked with this Able Archer [83] exercise. 

Roald Sagdeev  

Yeah, and this crisis was growing since the late 1970s. It started with Soviet plans to deploy a medium range rocket to threaten major European capitals -NATO allies of the United States – and to intimidate them. And in a reciprocal act, Americans started deployment of a similar type of medium range rocket, which would be able to reach Moscow from much closer distances – 1000 miles or shorter. And so, the crisis is what they called the Euro-Rocket Crisis and was very serious. Both sides understood that it would change qualitatively the balance of powers if there would be risk of launching such rockets – nuclear rockets – from shorter distances. I remember the Soviet government’s Politburo was extremely afraid of all these things. And suddenly, on top of that, Reagan delivers his speech about Star Wars. That was a culmination in 1983.

Metta Spencer  

Yeah, well some of us had been meeting in the earlier 1980s. Before the Star Wars thing began. I was already well engaged, because I had probably made 10 trips – well maybe not 10 by then, but I certainly did more than 10 later – to Russia and to other Eastern European cities where the Soviet Peace Committee would invite Western peace activists, large numbers of us – a whole plane full of us – at a time in about 1982. 

Frank von Hippel  

That was very significant period. There was this mobilization in both Western Europe and in the United States against the nuclear arms race. For my development, this was an important period. To see that, you know, that force was a real political force in the United States.

Metta Spencer  

It really had had influence, I think.

Frank von Hippel  

And I think Roald may be able to tell us that this had an impact in Moscow in the Gorbachev group, on feeling maybe the US was not just controlled by the military industrial complex. 

Roald Sagdeev  

Actually, that reminder of that period brings me back to a very intense moment. The reaction of different circles inside the Soviet elite to Reagan’s speech. I have to confess that there were enthusiasts. The leaders of the Soviet military-industrial complex said: “Great, we will have something more to do!”  Fortunately, Gorbachev came at that moment. And we knew that we were not alone. The idea of the terrible past of the arms race was shared with our American scientist counterparts. We were very successful to persuade Gorbachev to reject the attempts of the Soviet military industrial complex to follow the American precedent and establish a strategic defense initiative on the Soviet side. 

Metta Spencer  

Well, I want to hear about that, because I’m very aware that you were having a lot of influence with Gorbachev. And I think maybe that’s the first time you maybe did have much political influence. Is that right? How did that work? it? Did you meet with him? Or did he reach out to you? How did you use any kind of influence in those conversations?

Roald Sagdeev  

I think it started in in a rather accidental way. About a year before, Gorbachev became General Secretary when he was still a younger member of the Politburo. He was asked by the Politburo to make a trip to the United Kingdom to meet with Margaret Thatcher. So, he established a small delegation and a colleague of mine – Evgeny Velikhov – was invited by Gorbachev to join that trip. It was the first very successful trip and played a very important role later on when Thatcher explained to Reagan and the other Western leaders that Gorbachev is a new guy, a new face, and we can make a deal with him. We built some good connections between science and the future General Secretary. The very first thing we did was to prepare a manuscript explaining the dangers of following the line of missile defense. Frank knows this manuscript very well. We also used some advice from our American colleagues. It was delivered to Gorbachev and I believe it played an important role. Then, very soon after, Velikhov and I were invited to meet with Gorbachev and we were invited to accompany him to his very first summit with Reagan. 

Metta Spencer  

Oh, okay. And what happened there? What did you do while they were off by the fireplace having their conversation? 

Roald Sagdeev  

I think at the beginning it was rather easy to reach Gorbachev. Later, it was a little bit more difficult because of bureaucratic shielding around him. But I think Gorbachev firmly rejected attempts of the military industrialists inside the Soviet elite to change his mind. He was very much against Star Wars. The first two summits – in Geneva in 1985 and in Reykjavik in 1986 – went under the stigma of Star Wars. And I think Regan did his own homework and later on he understood that it was important to come to an agreement with the Soviets. It was Reagan who first said: “Let’s make a deal. Let’s destroy and annihilate all the nuclear rockets.” 

Metta Spencer  

I didn’t know it was Reagan. Oh, my goodness. 

Roald Sagdeev  

It was at Reykjavik in 1986.  

Metta Spencer:

I thought it was Gorbachev.

Roald Sagdeev  

Gorbachev thought it was a great idea, but he had one condition: he would also refuse to talk about continuing with the Star Wars strategy. So, it took some time before both finally agreed. I think it was fall of 1987 when Gorbachev had a short summit in Washington DC. At that point in time, it was very important. Euro Rockets had been cancelled and were being destroyed. An agreement was done to eliminate them. 

Metta Spencer  

Okay. Now, Frank, where were you at this point? Did Reagan take a team of scientists with him to the to these summits? The way that Roald was taken to the first summit by Gorbachev? 

Frank von Hippel  

No. We had no interaction with Reagan. He might have taken his science advisor along. But it’s very interesting what Roald is saying. In fact, my first interactions were actually with Gorbachev, not with Reagan. And it was thanks to the Soviet committee. It related to Gorbachev’s first initiative after he became General Secretary, which was to announce a unilateral Soviet nuclear test moratorium and which is actually similar to what Khrushchev had done when he tried to get a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Metta Spencer  

Is this when you worked on this seismic monitoring operation?

Frank von Hippel  

Yeah. Well, that’s one thing that came out of it. I think it was originally Velikhov’s idea – when the Reagan administration did not reciprocate and stop the US testing – as to how to keep the initiative alive. And Velikhov had this idea that maybe we should invite somebody in to monitor. Because some people in the Reagan administration were saying: “Well, maybe the Soviets are actually cheating. Maybe they’re carrying out small nuclear explosions at their test sites.”  So, then Velikhov suggested to me that maybe we should try to invite in somebody or a group to monitor the moratorium. 

Metta Spencer  

Was Velikhov the one who proposed that? 

Frank von Hippel  

Yes, it was Velikhov who proposed that. I think Tom Cochran from the Natural Resources Defense Council also had that idea on the United States’ side. He was one of the people that I invited to come to a meeting in Moscow in May 1986 to meet with Velikhov and discuss this idea. It was actually the NRDC which undertook the organizing of a group of American seismologists to come in and set up seismic stations around the Soviet test site in Kazakhstan. And that had a big impact in the United States, because of the efforts that Kennedy and Khrushchev had made to have a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had failed to stop nuclear testing underground as the Soviets did not want to have more than a certain number of in country inspections of suspicious seismic events. And the fact that the Soviet Union had unilaterally invited a group in to monitor their test site showed that things had changed. This was part of the nuclear glasnost that was pioneered by Gorbachev with Velikhov’s and Sagdeev’s advice. 

Metta Spencer  

I remember being at the office of Aaron Tovish who had gone with you on some of those trips. I remember he said that Ed Markey stood up in Congress and put up a big map and said: “Look here. This is where we have monitoring stations in Semipalatinsk. We have our people right there watching them.” And this made a big impression on congress. 

Frank von Hippel  

It did. It took some time, but ultimately Congress said in 1992 that: “If the rest of the world stops testing, we have to too.”  And that was actually what got us to the Comprehensive Test Ban [Treaty]. 

Metta Spencer  

So, you think that Congress had some important leverage in there? See, I’m surprised when Roald said it was Reagan who had proposed the cutback and making of a deal. I thought that Reagan had to be dragged there. But, if you’re right and he actually spoke first along those lines, that sounds good to me. I’m glad to hear it. 

Roald Sagdeev  

Of course, Congress played a very important role. At that time, there were great Senators and great members of Congress who were fully understanding the dangers of nuclear confrontations. They were against Reagan’s most extreme plans even before Reagan changed his mind. I think it was very important that by 1987 Reagan was ready already to move forward.   

Metta Spencer  

I guess an interesting question then is: “What really changed Reagan’s mind?” I do remember I was on the plane coming back from Moscow while the film called The Day After was shown. It was a very important film that showed the aftermath of a nuclear war. And I believe Reagan said that was what actually made him really get serious about nuclear disarmament. I never saw the film because I was on the plane when it was screening. Was there anything like that going on in the Duma or anywhere else? My impression was that all of the power was in the Politburo and not elsewhere. How much popular resistance was there during that period in Russia? 

Roald Sagdeev  

I don’t think I can compare Russian popular resistance to what was happening in Europe as we spoke of. In Europe, there was a really serious uprising with many big meetings, demonstrations against nuclear threats, and so on. In Russia, the government controlled the protests. Press the necessary buttons to organize the protests and so on. Even more today, you know, when Putin shows cartoons about new and more exotic nuclear rocket gadgets. The Duma stands up and collectively applauds. I feel nostalgic about the older times looking at what is happening today in Moscow. 

Metta Spencer  

I wish I had been able to invite Evgeny Velikhov, but I gather he is not well nowadays. I did have a conversation with him once about this. Frank, you worked quite closely with him, didn’t you?

Frank von Hippel  

Yes. He was a real hero in this period and in organizing these initiatives. I mentioned the monitoring project. He and Roald were very important in preventing the Soviet Star Wars. If the Soviets actually started their own Ballistic Missile Defense Program mirroring ours then I don’t think we would have been able to stop the arms race going on into a new offense-defense direction. Also, during the Glasnost – which was an opening up – Velikhov organized a number of events. One ended up with a demonstration. Roald and I did a research project on whether you could detect nuclear weapon warheads and the issue was whether to include sea launched nuclear armed cruise missiles in the START treaty that was under discussion. The Soviets wanted to include them. The Reagan administration said: “Well, you can’t tell the difference between a nuclear armed and a conventional sea launched cruise missile.”  So, Velikhov amazingly got permission from Gorbachev to have an experiment demonstration of whether you could detect the nuclear radiation from a sea launched cruise missile off Yalta in the Black Sea. Roald and I had been supervising a theoretical research project on that question. And so, the NRDC – again with Tom Cochran – undertook an initiative to demonstrate this on the US side. But I found much more impressive what the Soviets did. Basically, in our case, we had people sitting on top of the launcher on this cruiser in the Black Sea, detecting gamma rays coming out of the warhead. But the Soviets had a helicopter with a neutron detector flying by about 70 meters away and they could detect neutrons. 

Metta Spencer  

Hold on. Let me make sure. You had an American destroyer? 

Frank von Hippel  

It was a Soviet destroyer. 

Roald Sagdeev  

 Yes.

Metta Spencer  

So, the Soviets were detecting their own radiation? 

Frank von Hippel  

Yes. That was the amazing thing. This is the only time foreigners have been allowed to measure radiation from any warhead by any country. And Gorbachev had enforced this on the Soviet nuclear establishment. Just to finish the story about the helicopter: later on, they told me that they had actually been flying this helicopter over US ships and detecting the warheads. I said: “They would never let you to get that close. Would they?” And they showed me pictures of the sailors on the US ships waving at the helicopter.   

[all chuckle]

Roald Sagdeev  

Probably little did the sailors know that there were gamma ray and neutron detectors on those friendly helicopters! 

Metta Spencer  

You know, I have to wonder… I remember you told me that story when I interviewed you 20 some years ago. But I’ve wondered ever since: gamma rays were shooting all over the place. You could fly over or get within some meters of them and detect them. Well, what about the people on the ship? I mean that must not have been a fun place to be. Whatever happened to them? Wasn’t it dangerous to have nuclear weapons shooting out gamma rays? 

Frank von Hippel  

The levels that you can detect are much, much lower than the levels of that do harm. So, I think the dosage to the sailors were probably less than the natural background dose from cosmic rays and so on. So, this means that one of the things that the helicopter had to make sure of was that it wasn’t detecting cosmic rays, instead of the neutrons from the warheads. 

Roald Sagdeev  

This radiation is just like the radiation that contemporary gamma ray telescopes are getting from distant astronomical objects, like exploding stars and such. The biggest instrument like this is now on the International Space Station. Astronauts and cosmonauts help to use it. It’s no problem. 

Metta Spencer  

Oh, okay. I’ve often wondered. Isn’t it dangerous to be a sailor on a nuclear armed submarine? I wouldn’t take the job myself.

Frank von Hippel  

Well, I mean, in some cases, they actually have sailors sleeping on bunks over the stored nuclear armed cruise missiles. This isn’t true anymore, because they’re not deployed. That’s a little close for comfort, I think. But the radiation levels are pretty low coming out of the warheads. 

Roald Sagdeev  

Frank mentioned some research we were doing and actually what happened at approximately the same time: Frank, with a little bit of my participation, established a major international scientific magazine: Science and Global Security. This was where all the researchers could publish their calculations and analysis of different things related to all this military stuff. I understand this journal is still prospering now. 

Metta Spencer  

No kidding. Well, that’s really one of the things I was wondering which I’d hope we’d get to a bit later in this narrative. I mean, we’re sort of going through a chronology and moving forward in time. But certainly, I wouldn’t have thought there’d be much contact between scientists now – Russian scientists and Western scientists – on military matters. Is there or not?

Frank von Hippel  

There still is. Roald, are you still involved with this? 

Roald Sagdeev  

Very rarely. I have been invited to webinars. I think maybe two or three times over the pandemic. 

Frank von Hippel  

But there are regular meetings between the committee at the US Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Sciences. 

Roald Sagdeev  

Rose Gottemoeller is now running some of the sessions on the American side. 

Frank von Hippel  

Yes. And those meetings were quite important during the Gorbachev times when Richard Garwin – who was a great expert on all the ways that you could neutralize ballistic missile defense – had discussions under those auspices with Velikhov and another of Velikhov’s committees, which was the Soviet Academy counterpart to the US Academy committee. 

Metta Spencer  

How do they manage their secrets? Both sides most certainly have lots and lots of military secrets. How do they draw the boundaries? When you’re going to have a meeting, how do you plan it and how do you know whether you’re going close to talking about something you’re not supposed to?

Roald Sagdeev  

I think all the people had a lot of experience. Some of the members of these committees were coming from the military industrial complex. I also remember there was always some kind of interaction with the Central Committee of the Communist Party. So, before we would go to meet our American counterparts, we would have to get advice from the Soviet government and so on. It was very important to have this interaction. Of course, what was most important was that the participants had an understanding of what could be discussed and what should be kept secret. 

Metta Spencer  

Were there – or even now are there – really important things that should be known for the sake of making progress with disarmament or rapprochement of any kind that are not known and cannot be shared? Are you worried about censorship and secrecy or not? 

Frank von Hippel  

Physics is not classified. And, so you can – without talking about the specific designs of specific weapons – talk about generic approaches to nuclear arms control. So, I think it’s not that big of an impediment. 

Metta Spencer  

Okay. But let’s say, before the Soviets developed their own nuclear bomb, there would have been a time when Americans knew how and probably would have been very, very cautious about talking to Soviet scientists, right? Because they might give away some information that might be helpful in speeding up the development of a nuclear bomb. Am I wrong?

Frank von Hippel  

Yeah. But, the mantra of the Manhattan Project scientists – the World War II Manhattan Project nuclear program – when they came out, their mantra was: “There is no secret. There is no defense.” Once it had been demonstrated that you could make a nuclear weapon, it was pretty straightforward.

Metta Spencer  

Well, then it was a matter of time until it would be by others. But I think everybody was surprised at how quickly the Soviets developed it.

Roald Sagdeev  

Yeah, I think by the mid-1950s, it was already clear that both sides were equally knowledgeable about all the things. It was not a big deal. Secrets were on the technical side, on the details. But at such meetings, we never spoke about any such technical details. 

Metta Spencer  

I see.

Roald Sagdeev  

I remember there were several incidents when it was important to talk about some details. On the American side in the early 1980s, there was a kind of concern about whether the Soviets knew some particular tricks of how to stop a rocket that was accidentally launched while carrying nuclear weapons. The Americans were talking about a radio signal that could be sent to self-destruct and stop the rocket before it delivered any damage.  I remember they were telling us about this and asking if we were familiar with such technologies. The name was PAL – I think Frank knows it – Permissive Action Links. This system can self-destruct something which was launched. So, we then asked the Soviet authorities if they were interested in such things and that the Americans could explain the principle. We got the answer: “Oh, don’t worry. We also have a similar system.” 

Metta Spencer  

I thought there really wasn’t such a system. That once these things are launched, you can’t call them back or can’t undo it.

Roald Sagdeev  

I think a probable trigger to develop such system was the famous movie Dr. Strangelove.

Metta Spencer  

Yeah.

Frank von Hippel  

These Permissive Action Links are codes that are like a combination lock in the weapon which are activated. In the case of missiles, I don’t think you can, in fact, stop it. There was the concern that the Soviets might learn the code and then they could send the radio signal and prevent it. So, in fact, when the US has tests of nuclear missiles, it does have these systems in there in case the missile flies in the wrong direction. But, in the actual nuclear armed missiles they don’t have these safety systems. Once it’s launched, it can’t be recalled. This scared a lot of people. It still does. And I think that was one of the motivations that Reagan had when he proposed the abolition of ballistic missiles. He wanted to go back to bombers, which you could recall.

Metta Spencer  

Well, you can see the point. When do you feel things begin to fall apart? I mean, we know the history of the coup and all that, but I’m not sure from the standpoint of scientists. You had this strong interaction going on and cooperation. It sounded like you were the best of friends. But somehow that ended. I wonder if from your point of view, what was that landing like? Was that a hard landing? Did you sense things going wrong that that could have been fixed? What what went wrong when the Happy Days of ending the Cold War stopped?

Roald Sagdeev  

I think on the political front there was probably some kind of psychological feeling that was dominant in part of the American political elite. Triumphalism. “Oh, we have defeated the Soviet Union. We should not worry anymore.” There was probably such a feeling. And this feeling or something else finally lead to George W. Bush’s administration’s decision to abandon the ABM treaty. I think this was one of the biggest blunders in post-Cold War development. 

Frank von Hippel  

There was also NATO expansion which really triggered off Russian paranoia that we were removing the buffer that they had created at the end of World War II to prevent an invasion. I think then Putin really sort of came in and we became enemies again.

Roald Sagdeev  

I have an interesting story about the change in Putin’s thoughts. Early in his presidency, Susan Eisenhower and I were invited to meet with him in Moscow. We had a private tea party at his dacha outside of Moscow. He offered to explain to us his vision of what’s happening. He said: “Look, we have a several thousand-kilometer-long common border with China. On the Russian side of the border, it’s almost empty with very little population. The Far East of Siberia is at a great risk. This is why we need a real strategic partnership with the United States.” Imagine, this [being said] in January of 1993. What’s happening now is that he is almost embracing the Chinese. 

Metta Spencer  

Okay. What do you think flipped him? I never liked Yeltsin, but I don’t think he was the one that turned everything sour. Looking back, I cannot reconstruct how things went from good to really pretty bad. I do know that the shock therapy thing seems to have affected public opinion in Russia, because I was going to institutes like the Institute of USA and Canada and so on. It used to be that everybody was so enthusiastic about meeting me or any Western academic. But within a few months, when I would go there and meet people, I was getting real personal hostility, as if I had personally caused the shock therapy. But this was also a time when I’d seen people selling their furniture and their clothing and their belongings out on the street for money or anything. So, clearly the shock therapy had a very bad influence on public opinion. But it is my impression that Yeltsin and Clinton stayed very friendly towards each other straight through. I kind of don’t think that was the influence that really made for what looks like a renewal of the Cold War. I would like your thoughts on that period. 

Roald Sagdeev  

I think the chemistry between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin was exactly like that. They often spoke privately. Recently, some of the documents related to their interactions were released and published in Russia. One particular detail that I remember is that Clinton was warning Yeltsin to prepare for the news that they were going to do something with NATO in Europe. Yeltsin’s reaction was: “Can you please wait a few months? Because I am going for re-election.  Please do not spoil my chance of re-election.” 

Metta Spencer  

Well, he didn’t have much chance of honest re-election anyway. But I’ve heard that Clinton sent people to help him. You know, election officials, who knew how to rig things.

Roald Sagdeev  

The Russians call them political technologists. Those who know how to prepare for the elections. 

Metta Spencer  

Yeah. That didn’t sound too good to me. Okay. Now you left Russia and you seem to be able to go back. How did they react when you – so-called, if you don’t mind the expression – defected? 

Roald Sagdeev  

What happened? Velikhov later told me the whole story. The government created a special committee to evaluate potential leaks of national secrets. And Velikhov was a member of this committee. And he told me finally, after a number of sessions, they decided that the risk was zero because whatever this guy [I] knew was already obsolete and outdated. 

Metta Spencer  

Frank, do you remember that period and when things were on the downslide what was going wrong from your point of view?

Frank von Hippel  

Well, during the Yeltsin period, I was in the White House for a year and a half. We were working on a cooperative program to help the Russians strengthen the security over their nuclear materials. So, things were still I wide open there. But then after Putin came in, I think I made one trip to Arzamas [Arzamas-16] which was the second time I went. I actually went with my wife. We were invited and it was very difficult. They had difficulty getting us in. The idea of Americans visiting their sensitive installations was becoming very, very unpopular. And we could see that the security people around Putin were taking over and shutting down these sensitive visits. Roald would know whether a bubble formed around Putin where it became difficult for independent scientists to really have an impact at some point. 

Roald Sagdeev  

I think that reflects the story. Velikhov was still influential in the early part of Putin’s presidency. I don’t think so now. I have not seen him have serious influence during the last 10 years. 

Metta Spencer  

Well, when I talked to him, he was already sour on Gorbachev. And I wonder how much that kind of thing influenced public opinion and even the establishment. Toward the end of Gorbachev’s period, they really thought he was messing up badly, especially with the economy and of course with the rise of these nationalistic movements. I don’t know whether that was his perspective or not, but he was and some of the other people I met – like [Georgy] Arbatov – became quite critical of Gorbachev at a time when I thought Gorbachev needed a lot of help and support. I don’t know what it was like for people talking among scientists though and how much that influenced cooperation with Western scientists.

Roald Sagdeev  

I remember the days when and how Arbatov actually kind of slowly broke up with Gorbachev. And later on, Yeltsin appointed Arbatov as his advisor. I had almost a similar past in summer of 1988 because of some disagreement – not on science, but on internal political changes in perestroika. I also was excommunicated by Gorbachev. 

Metta Spencer  

Well, all right. So, there was a downhill slide. And it’s kind of kind of sad. Very sad, because if you guys were still riding high, we’d have solved all our problems long ago. And I think we’ve come toward the end of our time. Is there anything anybody would like to add that we haven’t covered? A recollection of any kind or advice? 

Frank von Hippel  

I’ll just add that public engagement with nuclear weapons issues is much less now than it was at that time. I think it was because people thought that the problem and danger, with the Cold War over, was gone. And I think the danger has always been accidental nuclear war happening without anybody intending to. I think that danger is still with us. 

Metta Spencer  

Absolutely. 

Frank von Hippel  

So, we’ve been trying to remind the public of that.

Metta Spencer  

Yeah, I agree. Thank you so much. This is wonderful. I’ve really enjoyed it. And I think somebody is gonna find this useful someday. Thank you both. It’s been fun.

Roald Sagdeev  

Thank you, Metta. Keep going on with your program.

Metta Spencer  

I will.

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 346 
Panelists: Ed Broadbent
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired:  11 October 2021
Date Transcribed and Verified:  8 November 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: Adam Wynne

Synopsis: Ed Broadbent led the NDP for 15 years, then the government-funded institute Rights and Democracy and now the Broadbent Institute, which promotes social democracy.

Metta Spencer  

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. If you are a Canadian social democrat or NDP person, this is your day. You get to talk to or listen to your biggest hero: Ed Broadbent. And this is going to be a real treat for me because I have admired this man for many, many years. And now I get an hour with him. So, hang on there, we’re going to have a conversation about social democracy. He’s in Ottawa, I think. Is that where you live nowadays? 

Ed Broadbent  

Yes, indeed. That’s where I am. 

Metta Spencer  

Well, good morning, Ed Broadbent. Hi. 

Ed Broadbent  

Good morning to you. It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Metta Spencer  

Let’s have some conversation about social democracy. We already started a little while ago, when I said that I just been reading a Wikipedia article which only muddied the subject and tried to make a distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism, which I thought was bizarre. But you were going to try to clear my head and we ran out of time. So, start over, will you? 

Ed Broadbent  

Let me begin by saying I always used to use it when I was an active politician. I use the terms synonymously: democratic socialism or social democracy. But historically, some people quite plausibly in the way I talk now – academically – do make a distinction between social democracy and socialism. The distinction being social democracy has a role for the private sector in terms of market mechanisms, which socialism as such does not. And so that’s a distinction. Both, I would emphasize are democratic in nature. But the one, as I say, has a clear role for the private sector. Maybe we’ll get to elaborate on what that means in practice.

Metta Spencer  

Are there parties, some of which call themselves Social Democrats and others say they’re only Democratic Socialists? Are there real party differences or is this a matter of picking a certain kind of adjective?

Ed Broadbent  

Largely, it’s a matter of picking a certain kind of adjective now.

Metta Spencer  

Okay. All right, then I don’t think we need to labour the subject, because I find it tedious.

Ed Broadbent  

Pretty boring, right?

Metta Spencer  

But what isn’t tedious is talking with you about your own life and your own career line. Because, of course, the first time I knew about you, you were the leader of the NDP and I was an acolyte. But I haven’t been so engaged lately and nor have you. For how many years? You stepped down from that role when? 

Ed Broadbent  

In 1989. At the end of the year in 1989. After some 21 years in politics. 15 of which were as leader of the NDP.

Metta Spencer  

All right. So, after that, at some point, you’ve had two post-career careers. In that you’ve been the leader of two different institutions and you probably have done other things that I don’t know about, which I would like to hear about. But tell me… I’d like to explore these two roles or these two institutions.

Ed Broadbent  

The first one was a creation of the Government of Canada: an institution that became known as Rights and Democracy. And it was set up following the recommendation of then all three parties in the House of Commons: the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats. A committee report that looked at violence in Central America in the 1980s provided a foundation for saying that the Government of Canada should create an institution that would operate at arm’s length from the government and not controlled by the government. The mandate of which would be the promotion of the UN system of human rights abroad. So it had a mandate not for human rights within Canada, but for human rights activism abroad. So, the Covenant on Political and Civil Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were to be promoted abroad and that institution was set up. And then if I may say so: it thrived. Not just while I was there, but after Warren Allmand – a very distinguished former cabinet minister in Pierre Trudeau’s government. Warren Allmand succeeded me and there were a couple of other executive directors too. And the activity was very well recognized internationally, by activist groups all over the world and by UN agencies interested in the promotion of rights. Unfortunately, Stephen Harper shut it down. He was the first prime minister to actually interfere in the operation of the institution. Up to then, both liberal and conservative Prime Ministers kept their hands off and respected the integrity and independence of Rights and Democracy. But Mr. Harper chose, first of all, to appoint some people that were highly partisan and highly – and I choose my words with care – right-wing in terms of international politics. And this led to major clashes between the boards of directors and the staff of Rights and Democracy. And ultimately, what happened is that the Harper government shut it down because it basically couldn’t tolerate an institution that was operating independently of the Government of Canada.

Metta Spencer  

Well, let’s consider what were some of those disputes. Was this that the Harper appointees favoured some right-wing governments that actually were not mindful of human rights or even were abusive themselves? 

Ed Broadbent  

The principle focus for the government – the Harper government – was on Israel and Middle East politics. 

Metta Spencer  

Oh boy.

Ed Broadbent  

And what it objected to specifically was the recognition of the support of human rights groups that worked both within the Occupied Territories and within Israel itself. There were human rights groups – internationally recognized to be independent – that made criticism at different and various times both of certain Palestinian activities and of the activities of the Government of Israel. And the Harper government could not tolerate and would not tolerate any criticism of Israel. And it was tragic that this kind of focus of the Harper government, as I say: the first Canadian government to actually interfere with the running of Rights and Democracy. This narrow and intolerant attitude by Mr. Harper led to conflict and then ultimately they decided to shut the institution down. Though I repeat, by then I had no direct connection at that point. But other people who succeeded me and a very lively activist staff had all obtained international recognition for very good work. But the Harper government, as I say, could not tolerate or would not tolerate independent activity in this when it came to Middle Eastern politics.

Metta Spencer  

Let me go slightly off of topic because what you’re reminding me of is the recent kerfuffle in Britain about Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of a group that was deemed anti-Semitic. I was astonished that left wing parties or whole movements or whole parties in a Western society could still be called something like anti-Semitic. But of course, I haven’t lived in Britain. I have no idea what they’re all about. Is this something that happens? I mean I had been dumbfounded. Who would call anybody anti-Semitic anymore?

Ed Broadbent  

There are groups that are accused of it, but in the case of the British Labour Party – and I won’t pretend to know in detail and want to emphasize that – but the accusation was that the then leader Mr. Corbyn failed to deal with certain members of the Labour Party who had indulged in anti-Semitic activity. Not that the Labour Party itself was, nor was it suggested that Mr. Corbyn was himself. He was criticized for the failure of leadership, if you like, for not dealing with accusations of anti-Semitism accurately. I would say you have this problem in almost any party in the Western world. There will be and can be elements of anti-Semitism or Islamophobia or whatever that occur with particular individuals. But we shouldn’t make blanket claims about the parties or institutions that they happen to belong to.

Metta Spencer  

We could veer off and talk about what’s going on in the Green Party right now in Canada. A very similar thing, but I think that would be really going afield. Let’s go back to where you were. You were telling me about the demise of the Rights and Democracy. What was the entire title of it?

Ed Broadbent  

While the original title in legislation is one of those linguistic abominations and it was the International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development. That’s what it was when I became the Executive Director. That eventually became sensibly just called Rights and Democracy.

Metta Spencer  

Okay. Now there are other similar organizations run by other western states, right?

Ed Broadbent  

Not many. There are some that some Scandinavian governments have. But this was, at the time, a particularly important Canadian initiative. As I said, it was supported by all the parties in the House of Commons at the time and it was given, for example, if I can make a comparison with the United States: the US Congress has established a couple of entities that promote democracy abroad, but they are more closely and directly affiliated with either the Democratic Party or Republican Party in the US. And what was distinctive about the Canadian initiative, is that it was not to be associated with any political party as such, but was to have a mandate to promote the UN system of human rights and democratic development – as opposed to say, the American model, which is to promote a version of American democracy abroad. So, the Canadian government in its wisdom said: “Oh, let’s have really international body here.” And we were. We got accredited by the UN and we were recognized by governments. When I went as the Executive Director to Latin American countries or in South Asia, I was normally greeted by the Prime minister or President. Because on the one hand, we were a creation of the Government of Canada. So, I had that status. But on the other hand, our mandate was independent and not partisan and that came to be recognized, understood, and supported broadly abroad.

Metta Spencer  

Well, I remember feeling very disappointed at the time. It was a big mess. But now, when did your own Broadbent Institute get founded and how did that come about?

Ed Broadbent  

Well, just about 10 years ago. To be precise, it was an emanation of conversations with Jack Layton and other associates of mine. Near the end of Jack’s life, some of us had for some time talked about the need for an institution that would be independent of the party in this context, but specifically social democratic. So, it would be clear in terms of the kind of political system we wanted to promote. I was asked by a number of senior staff people of Jack Layton at that time if I would lend my name to it and would I be it first active chairperson. And I agreed to that, because I thought it was a good idea to have such a body that would function independently of the party, but have social democratic values. So that’s how it came into being.

Metta Spencer  

Is it funded by the NDP or independently? 

Ed Broadbent  

Initially, money came from the NDP for the first year and its start up. But since then, it’s been totally independent of the NDP in every regard. We’re not, of course, hostile to the NDP no more than we’re hostile to other parties. But we function as a social democratic [organization].

Metta Spencer  

My guess is this… tell me if I’m wrong: The lines between a number of centrist to leftist parties globally are blurring now. That you can’t just by looking at a platform guess whether a particular platform represents one party or another one necessarily. Is that fair to say? 

Ed Broadbent  

I actually think it is going in the other direction now. 

Metta Spencer  

Really? 

Ed Broadbent  

A few years ago, particularly in association with Tony Blair, as leader of the Labour Party and subsequently Prime Minister, moved his particular party to the right. Clearly in terms of its political behavior and accepting a high degree of marketization of life. Quite a conscious turning its back on social democratic views as they traditionally have been understood while there followed a period where the center left parties – like Labour or the German Social Democrats or the French Socialist Party – moved to the right or to the center. And then the distinctions between the parties became very blurred indeed. But I would argue that there’s been a reemergence now of more clear classification of parties. Look at what’s happening in the United States, for example. There is a clear and distinct ideological as well as programmatic distinction between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. There’s much clearer differences between those two parties now than there were in a pre-Trump era and the pre-Biden era. Mr. Biden clearly has moved the democratic party or the Democratic Party moved him well to the left of where they were under Mr. Obama or even earlier presidents. The present leader and president of the Democratic party with him in the United States – Mr. Biden – has really reconstituted a kind of Rooseveltian activism. A positive view of the state that would intervene to produce greater equality in US society. So, that is making a distinction between parties in the US, not a blurring of them.

Ed Broadbent  

Well, yes, but I wasn’t meaning that the right wing and the center and left are all blurring together, but only that the center and the left are closer together. For example, in Germany now: I think they’re quite confused about what they’re going to have by way of a new government, because I guess the SDP won, but by hair’s breadth. Right? 

Ed Broadbent  

Right.

Metta Spencer  

As of this minute, maybe if I didn’t look at the newspaper today, I would be wrong. 

[both chuckle] 

Metta Spencer  

I would assume, of course, any centrist government for the Christian Democrats, for example, would have a hard time making any kind of coalition with the AfD. The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is clearly a right-wing party. You couldn’t make a deal with those guys. But, for them to make a deal with the Greens, for example, or the SPD would be easy. Even the Christian Democrats and SPD and Greens could. Could that blur together? 

Ed Broadbent  

Yes. And Ms. Merkel has – and I say this as a social democrat about her as a Christian Democrat – provided a high degree of quite civilized and stabilizing government over Germany for the past 15 years. A remarkable accomplishment. And has done so very often – which does go back to your point – with the support in her government of the SPD. The man who is now leading the SPD and has a legitimate claim to be the next Chancellor was her Minister of Finance. He is now claiming with a great mandate of about 1.5% over the Christian Democrats, his right to form a government which is trying to do with – as I understand it – the Green Party and a more market oriented smaller party. But in Germany, your contention about the parties moving closer together, I think is accurate. And a number of people in the SPD have been critical of the leadership of the SPD for becoming too conservative. But we’ll see what happens now.

Metta Spencer  

You wouldn’t expect very dramatic changes of policy? Well, in fact, what changes would you expect if the SPD were flying under its own colours entirely? What kinds of changes would you expect Germany to take from the Merkel government?

Ed Broadbent  

Well, labour market policies, workers trade union rights, and a focus on employment prospects in general and inequality in the tax system. The SPD have talked about that as well. So, there would be – in those instances – moves, I think, by the SPD in a clear social democratic direction.

Metta Spencer  

How different would you say these two wings of the Democratic Party are? I would assume that you would call – well, Bernie Sanders himself would call himself a socialist and so does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others. And yet, by and large, the project that they propose – the Green New Deal – I would say that Biden has bought into a lot of it.

Ed Broadbent  

You’re raising the question about the left wing of the Democratic Party and how different is it from the other parts of the party? Is that the question? Well, it is distinctly different, I think. The Bernie Sanders wing – if I can put it like that – is very much like the NDP actually, if you look at their program. And whether it’s on the environment, whether it’s dealing with inequality, you name it, it’s a left social democratic agenda of very serious proportions that everybody in the US has acknowledged has really shifted the democratic party to the left and with great support of the American people. Overwhelmingly. The interesting discussion – just in the past few days before our discussion here – is the decision of Mr. Biden in choosing between the two branches of his party that are currently in some, you know, conflict over what kind of agenda they would support. He’s come down on the side of the of the left wing of the Democratic Party. And correctly pointing out, I believe, that the things they are advocating are supported by the majority of Americans. And polling shows that. So, there are differences between the wings in the Democratic Party, as there are in most democratic parties. But here they can be more serious in conflict, because of the institutional structure of the American government and of the need to have so many senate votes and so many house votes. For example, they need every vote in the Senate that they can get to pass legislation and they’re having trouble with some obstreperous so-called moderates that may deny them the agenda because of the 50-vote requirement. Well, because of these factors, the resolution of the differences between the wings of the Democratic Party are quite serious in their political consequences. So, one hopes, I hope, there’s a man who, broadly speaking, is supported the democratic agenda. Mr. Biden, I hope he’s successful in bringing the two wings of his party together.

Metta Spencer  

Okay, now they would call their platform the Green New Deal, right? And there are in other countries similar platforms, proposals, and whole agendas for social change, which emphasize a lot of green, environmental, and climate change things. Compare that to the difference between the Green Party and the NDP in Canada. Would you call the Green New Deal comparable to the NDPs position on everything? Or how would it differ?

Ed Broadbent  

 I can’t get into detail because I don’t know the American details well enough to do that. But in broad principles, I can. I mean, the Green New Deal in the US and similar to the Green New Deal of the NDP here is to help for a just transition away from fossil fuels dependencies. In both countries, the progressive elements favour that kind of approach. It will break down in different details, as the different requirements of the two countries would necessitate. But philosophically, it’s the same orientation. So, an American that was supporting the Green New Deal in the US and moved to Canada would be happily, I think, situated in the NDP and could well be happily and socially associated with the Green Party as well.

Metta Spencer  

Okay, there’s the question. How compatible are these two parties? And if they’re so compatible, why aren’t they merged?

Ed Broadbent  

Well, I’ve felt that way for a long time. I didn’t see – as unbiased as I’m not – the necessity of creating a new Green Party when the NDP was leading in environmental matters in the House of Commons for many years. So, I think it was unnecessary. But I respect those who wanted to put perhaps a greater emphasis on environmental policies than was the case in the NDP. But I think it was a mistake politically. I think the NDP had a broad ranging environmental policy, as well as being concerned about inequality, for example. 

Metta Spencer  

Inequality, for sure, that seems to be the real hallmark of any Social Democratic Party. I was pretty enthusiastically a NDPer for a long, long time. And then I got mad. I really have two different grievances with the party and that is, in fact, I’m indifferent. I’m not very active at all in that regard, because I wish the NDP – and in the US the Green New Deal people – would include militarism as a problem. I would like to see a cut back on military spending and diversion of that funding to all kinds of other social projects, including a high emphasis on climate change issues. That bothers me the most. And then the time I really got mad at Jack Layton was when he would not support the carbon tax which Stéphane Dion was proposing at the time. You know and the basis for it was, I think, that the NDP is so fervently committed to labour and labor doesn’t want to lose jobs, so he wouldn’t take any stand in favour of carbon tax. But, the most important thing that can be done for climate change is a good, strong carbon tax. So, I’ve harbored my grievances all these years and now I’m going to dump them all over you.

Ed Broadbent  

I would agree with you on the carbon tax issue and the party is certainly, under its present leader, strongly supportive of the carbon tax and all its provincial elements, including the Ontario NDP. The British Columbia Government, I think, was the first provincial government to enter into an agreement with the federal government on a carbon tax. In any case, they support it. So, there’s broad support for a carbon tax now. Maybe I managed to block out of my memory Jack’s original position on the carbon tax. I quite honestly have forgot. I’m going to have to accept your word for this and check it out later. I’m sure you’re not just misleading me, but I had forgotten that at one point. As you say, Jack opposed the carbon tax. You’re quite sure of that, are you? 

Metta Spencer  

Oh, I wrote him a letter and scolded him and said I was quitting the party. 

Ed Broadbent  

That should have done it. 

Metta Spencer  

Well, he didn’t apologize. 

[both chuckle]

Metta Spencer  

Okay, well, we have gone around in a circuitous direction to what you really most want to talk about. The general principles of social democracy. I assume you are the quintessential representative of social democratic thinking in Canada. So, what are your principles, sir?

Ed Broadbent  

Well, we laid them out in the document that we adopted earlier this year. But if I can put it in broad terms there are two key elements, I believe, of any approach to a social democratic view of society. One is the abominable word decommodification; but it’s a word with rather precise meaning. The main meaning is to take out of the market mechanism in our life in our society, the production of certain goods and services and make them a matter of rights, instead of a matter or substance that you buy in the marketplace. That is an absolutely crucial idea. For example, when Tommy Douglas was working so many decades ago in good ol’ prairie Saskatchewan on the development of universal Medicare, he didn’t say to himself: “Well, is it cheaper or is it more efficient?” Although it’s important to have these qualities, he said: “Should human beings have this as a right? Should they have access to health care because they’re human beings and citizens of Canada?” And not because they can buy it in the marketplace. And that is so crucial. I mean, if you look at the broad history of Canada, one of the first things to be commodified – and we never think of it in these terms – was high school education. In the 19th century, if you were going to educate your children beyond the elementary school level you would pay to go to some other institution to provide what we call high school level education today. Well, the decision was appropriately made by governments pretty soon to establish – as a universal right for kids growing up – access to high school education and not just elementary school. And that principle has been extended to health care. And we in the NDP, for example, have been leading the battle to extend it to pharmacare in our generation as a national program and we’re, of course, first to advocate childcare. Low-cost provision by government of childcare facilities that are now being done, acknowledged by a Liberal government that has been promising to do it, mind you, for about 30 years. But the principle – I come back to that – is that you fight for these things, because they are rights of citizenship and you want to take them out of the market. Not necessarily because they’re cheaper, although they normally are if we provide it as a universal service – as we found out, for example, in the senior citizens’ long-term care residences.

Metta Spencer  

I want to come back to that. I remember reading a book you wrote some 15 years ago or so. The thing that I came away with, which impressed me most and I still remember, is that you were arguing that whenever you want to provide a new service for – probably the people who need it will be the poor in the society – the smart thing to do is not just to give a means test and offer it to the people who fit within the criteria of poverty or whatever need would entitle them to it, but rather to make it equally available to all citizens. And that is much more sustainable and it causes less divisiveness within the society. 

Ed Broadbent  

Yes.

Metta Spencer  

 I remember being very impressed by that argument. And I presume you still maintain that? 

Ed Broadbent  

Very much so. That’s the reason behind those – whatever party they happen to be in and overwhelmingly they’re in the NDP – people who advocate universal programs is for that reason. It’s to build up solidarity, by all citizens that we all get that benefit. And then if, you know, people say: “Well, why should rich people have it?” Well, rich people have access to elementary schools, just like the rest of the kids in the neighborhood. And then they pay or ought to pay just proportionately more in their income taxes. The higher income you have, the greater should be your contribution to the common good. And that common good would include things like childcare, for example, in the future pharmacare, or the Canada Pension. These are benefits that should be available to all Canadians and paid for on the basis of capacity to pay. And so, that’s a key idea, if I may say so, about social democracy. It’s to launch into programs like that and to get them out of the market. So, growing up, we don’t have to compete in the market for these things in our lives. We get them because they’re provided by the state, but we all pay taxes into the state too. So, it’s not a free ride, right? And the other the other aspect of social democracy that I think is key, is the notion of equality. Inequality is a big concern, especially in a market economy. By definition in the market economy, you’re going to have inequalities and a serious social democratic government addresses these inequalities, primarily by the taxes so that those who have more will pay more of their share. And as is being talked about. Literally today yet another report was published – from the United Nations, I understand – which is showing how so many rich people around the world are managing to create tax havens where they ship their money off and they have it in these havens and don’t pay any income tax on it. Well, that’s got to change.

Metta Spencer  

Absolutely it has to change. But also, I wonder, have you officially personally taken a position about wealth tax? Reading Piketty – 10 years ago or so – I was immediately impressed with the idea that that would be a big step forward to actually tax not only income, but even more to tax wealth, because the inequalities that have already been created are self-maintaining and even growing. Obviously, we know that the rich have gotten richer, even during the COVID epidemic.

Ed Broadbent  

Yes, and by accumulation of wealth and not just income. And yes, we at the Broadbent Institute favour a wealth tax and I’m pleased to see that the New Democratic Party in the recent federal election, under Mr. Singh, has promoted the idea of a wealth tax as well. So that too would contribute to a society of greater equality. The other thing that I would stress about more equality being necessary is that the studies have shown that the more equality you have, the overall effect on society is better. Health outcomes, for example, are much better and more equally distributed if you have a reduced gap between people on the basis of income. Crime rates are lower in the more equal society you have. Almost every social indicator shows more positive outcomes the more equal the society is. So, the two key ideas of social democracy, among others, but the two key are: taking certain values out of the market – like health care – and providing them as rights; and secondly, to be concerned about inequality and use the power of government – democratic government and taxation – to reduce inequalities in our society,

Metta Spencer  

I read some of the positions on your website under the heading of social democracy and they seem to have to deal with economic issues. One of them being long term care. And I noticed in today’s paper, that there’s again talk about changing the system. Now I have a friend – Pauline Rosenau – who was on this talk show last week. She was part of a study of long-term care or nursing home care in, I think, five or six different countries. So, it was a major study just not too long ago. And they found the non-profit nursing homes were much better by and large than the profit seeking ones. They actually took better care of people. Canada wasn’t really all that much better – well, the US was the worst, as you might expect – but Canada was not at the top. I think Sweden was maybe at the top and some of the other countries that you would expect to be. But now, I believe your Institute and the website have proposed that long term care be part of Medicare, that it’s just another right or entitlement which everybody would have. Now, I don’t know how far the Canadian government has gone in that direction, I know that there’s some kind of care available to everybody who’s old and weak, but I don’t know what kind of changes would be involved in simply making it an entitlement for everybody.

Ed Broadbent  

Well, it would be a substantial bureaucratic change to implement it that way. But the wording is designed to show that it would become a right like Medicare. Like, you know, we now have access to any hospital treatment that we want regardless of your income. Similarly, we’re saying there should be access to long term care residences on that basis. Now, that would mean by necessity that you have to create literally 1000s of new spaces across Canada to make that an operational right. But that’s exactly what needs to be done. And it can’t be done overnight. As you’ve indicated, studies have shown that not-for-profit, long-term care has better results, better outcomes for patients than as the profit-oriented model. So, we have to go into the direction of non-profit public facilities and that would take time to implement, but every aspect of our healthcare system has taken time to implement. And if we started on that now with an agenda, with so much in the federal expenditure each year, over time we can make that an effective right. And of course, in this domain, it should be a cost sharing arrangement of some kind with the provinces, just as existing health care funding is.

Metta Spencer  

Yeah. Also, the paper I read today was talking about just plain, sort-of humanizing the experience of living in a long-term facility. That people now really don’t have much choice of what time of day they’re to eat or the what the menu is going to be or how to spend their time. They don’t have enough help. This recommended that at least four hours a day of direct personal assistance be available to every person living in such a place. As well, as the residents being allowed to plan their own day and schedule, whether they want to move around and, you know, how they’re going to spend their time and have a little bit more [freedom] and be treated as a home instead of a patient in a hospital.

Ed Broadbent  

That sounds good to me. I may get there one day.

Metta Spencer  

Well, you and me too. Any day now. 

[both chuckle]

Metta Spencer  

I do like that idea. So okay, and now, what do you foresee for the future of the Broadbent Institute? By the way, I see it as focusing very much on just Canada. 

Ed Broadbent  

That’s true.

Metta Spencer  

And also, very much on the economic end of things. I didn’t see much about foreign policy or certainly about military policy. 

Ed Broadbent  

That’s true, we have limited resources and we are trying to be sure we know what we’re talking about. We’ve quite consciously stayed away from foreign policy, for example, as an institute. Of course, we’ll take part as individuals in foreign policy debates and related matters. But as an institute, we’ve decided not to do that at this point, because of the limitations of resources and funding. We have to generate donations to keep ourselves in existence. And so, we’ve just drawn the line at certain kinds of activity.

Metta Spencer  

When you talk about social democracy, would you say there is a general orientation with respect to international relations or is it just a question of how to allocate economic resources?

Ed Broadbent  

No. I would say social democratic philosophy has as its basic, important raison d’être the pursuit of peace. A man that I was close to for a number of years was Willy Brandt who had been Chancellor of West Germany. He had a very distinguished reputation: an anti-Nazi career as a young man and then became Chancellor of West Germany. And he was known for his so called Ostpolitik which was an opening or trying to open relations between the West and the East, which at that time were divided between the Communist world and the non-Communist world. And he strove quite seriously – I know from talking to him and from observing them- to have built peace-making institutions globally. So, my own view is that social democracy in its essence really does want to work towards a peaceful world and with much less emphasis on spending on militarization. To get away from that as a philosophic goal there’s no doubt about that in my view.

Metta Spencer  

I think for a lot of peace organizations – I’m thinking, for example, of the International Peace Bureau, which I was engaged with on the Steering Committee a long-time ago and a number of them and Peace Magazine and our own Project Save the World, which is what I’m doing right now – the orientation has been more lately toward a broadening of the concept of what are the issues that have to be considered along with just the military. That is, I think, the connection with global warming, you can’t ignore it. The connection to famine, the possibility of pandemics as we’ve seen. We talk about radioactive contamination and the risks of, you know, mining hazards and things like that or other kinds of exposure to radiation or radioactivity. And cyber risks. All of those are part of what we consider not just peace, but a broader agenda. I think really most of these issues need to be addressed comprehensively with a with a big platform with a lot of items on it.

Ed Broadbent  

I would say you’re absolutely right. I would agree with all of the above. For sure.  I’m afraid I’m going to have to go.

Metta Spencer  

Well, it’s time anyway. We’ve used up our time pretty much and I have enjoyed very much the opportunity to talk to you.

Ed Broadbent  

I’ve enjoyed it too. Good luck in your work.

Metta Spencer  

Thank you so much. And in yours. Continue with your wonderful leadership.

Ed Broadbent  

Thank you. Take care. Bye bye.

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 288
Panelists: Richard Denton, Corey Levine, Tariq Rauf, Doug Saunders, and Erika Simpson
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired:  13 July 2021
Date Transcribed and Verified: 7 September 2021
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: Adam Wynne

Synopsis: The Afghanistan War has changed quickly since the US and NATO troops withdrew. Corey Levine, Tariq Rauf, Erika Simpson and Richard Denton expect a Taliban win.

Metta Spencer  

Hi, I’m Metta Spencer. Today we’re going to go talk about nuclear non-proliferation, because there is a Review Conference coming up in a few months and we’re going to consider what should be done about it. But we have some very diverse secondary interests of all the people on this panel today, somebody is interested in Cuba, somebody else is interested in Afghanistan. So, we may go off in who knows what direction because this is a Schmooze Day. That means you don’t have to stick to the topic. It means you can talk about whatever is of interest. So, I have five brilliant panelists today visiting me on my computer. And I will go from left to right: Doug Saunders is a correspondent or a columnist for The Globe and Mail and he’s been explaining to Erika that he’s about to go off to Germany in another month or so for another extended stay to do some research for a book. So next is Erika Simpson, who is an Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at Western University in London, Ontario. She’s an expert on NATO. And here in the middle of this list on my screen is Corey Levine. Corey is in Victoria, British Columbia at the moment, but just recently returned from a stint in Afghanistan, where you were working for UN Women. And in Vienna, we have Tariq Rauf who is a longtime consultant, an expert on all things nuclear – so nuclear weapons and I know that you also worked at the IAEA, so you must have your fingers in other pies as well. So hello, Tariq. And in Sudbury, Richard Denton has just joined us. He is the Co-Chair of the North American Chapter of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, which means that he knows a thing or two about nuclear weapons and also things like gamma rays. Why don’t we talk about the past and future of Afghanistan? What’s going to happen there? And what is already unfortunately happening? Corey, what’s going on? 

Corey Levine  

Well, that is a very interesting question. It a $64 billion question. I’ve only been back a couple of weeks. And even in the couple of weeks since I’ve returned, things have changed with lightning speed on the ground. I don’t think anyone expected the Taliban to militarily make as many gains as they’ve had. They’re taking over DACs – District Administrative Centers – left, right, and center. They’re basically knocking on the doors of the major urban centers – for example, Kandahar. They’ve actually taken over some of the provincial capitals already. So, you know, experts have been predicting that the government would fall within six months. I’m wondering if that timeline can be pushed up. I have no idea of what’s going to happen with Kabul. I would be interested to hear what Doug, Erika, and others may have to say about that. The Taliban have claimed that they’ve changed their stripes – that “We’ve changed. We are now a new modern, forward Taliban” – but [there are] reports coming in from the areas that they control – and I was actually talking with an Afghan women parliamentarian last night – are extremely concerning. We know that they’re closing girls’ schools. The parliamentarian was informing me that the Taliban are back to their tactics of night letters, sending night letters to women in Nangarhar province saying: “If you don’t stop working, we can’t be blamed for what may happen to you.” Women are being beaten for not having Mahrams, which are male relative escorts in the streets. And more horror stories like this. So, this is what constituents are reporting to their parliamentarians.

Tariq Rauf  

I’ve been following it a little bit. And I agree with what Corey said. I am of the opinion that the Taliban have not changed their stripes. They are just being politic in what they are saying. And I think the report are a little bit exaggerated that they now control 85% of the country. Apparently, the Afghan forces in many remote areas have not been properly supplied because of corruption and they are running out of ammunition. So those who are soldiers are surrendering. But I think it will be quite a fight for them to take the major urban centers. And Afghanistan is lightly populated in in many different areas. So, I also see, I think, some sort of a civil war coming, unfortunately, because some of the warlords and tribal leaders will be activated who have different agendas than the Taliban themselves. And then we have the neighboring countries, Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, they all have their different agendas. India as well. So, there will be some other proxy battles coming to Afghanistan. So I personally, unfortunately, am not very optimistic over the shorter to the medium term about stability, peace, human rights, and women’s rights in particular in Afghanistan.

Metta Spencer  

Erika? 

Erika Simpson  

Thank you, Metta.  I work on NATO issues, but I also work on Afghanistan and on security sector reform issues. So, on that topic, I wanted to mention that the Afghan national security forces are going to get 37 Blackhawk helicopters and all sorts of equipment from the US, although NATO has pulled out. So, the Italian, the Germans, and NATO have entirely pulled out as of last few weeks and the US is retaining some forces there to protect… I mean, I’m sympathetic Corey towards your argument about Kabul falling, but I think Kabul will not fall and the international airport will not fall, because internationally, that would look like Saigon in 1975 again. It would look terrible. And so, the US will be forced somehow to stay with a limited force and assisting the Afghan National Army, the Defense Force, and the Police. So on that score, I’m very sympathetic to what you’re saying, Corey, about what the Taliban is doing to women in the rural areas. But what I’m hearing from people in Afghanistan is that it’s a bit of propaganda – The New York Times – it’s a bit exaggerated about the number of districts. There are 400 districts. So, they’re saying that the Taliban have taken over – in the last few days – 160 [districts]. But the Afghan forces are saying that they’re securing them back again. So, Tariq’s point about a civil war is very valid as well, that there will be a civil war there for the long term for generations to come, but I’m optimistic that they’ll preserve the capital and perhaps Kandahar City.

Doug Saunders  

I’d be interested in hearing not how many districts the Taliban claimed to have achieved political control over, but how much of Afghanistan they have economic control over or control over trade routes. My knowledge of Afghanistan is out of date. I haven’t been there since a decade ago. But it always seemed to be true and it still seems to be true that whether a specific Afghan man was a fighter for the Afghan National Army or for the Taliban depended on the ability to pay him. And all the work we did found that the motivation for most Taliban fighters was self-interested economic concerns rather than necessarily ideology or anything. And that even during the height of the occupation and the military operations, Taliban related forces managed to control a large amount of the poppy economy and whatever there was of a non-poppy economy by controlling passage down roads and what farmers could grow and that sort of thing. So, I could imagine that would only get worse. I would say: if the Afghan government is stuck with Kabul is sort of a stronghold, that not going to be much of an Afghanistan. And I fear that bridge may already have been crossed. That we were never really able to give the Afghan government secure control over trade and economy.

Erika Simpson  

I think if I can add to what you’re saying, Doug, I think the only real difference now is that the Pakistan government is involved and is sending mercenaries in. So, I know the Afghanistan government has already captured 1417 Pakistani mercenaries. Pakistan is very involved in tipping that strategic area. I’d be curious what you think about the change [and] the shift in politics, because – as you know – Afghanistan has always been kind of a zone of fighting. So, if Pakistan takes over, how will that tip politics with India and with China? That’s interesting to me. I’m also obviously interested in women and schools and so on, but just looking at the larger strategic picture with Pakistan involved. 

Corey Levine  

To be clear, I’m not saying that Kabul is going to fall or won’t fall. There will be an incredible fight for it. That is for sure. It will take a long time to sort out what will happen to Kabul. So first of all, let me be clear on that. I do think the Taliban will be successful at taking over pretty much the rest of the country. In regards to Kabul, who knows what is going to happen. I think in the other urban centers – Herat, Jalalabad, Mazar-i-Sharif, and Kandahar – there’s also going to be problems. But I think to go back to Doug’s point, first of all: the Taliban is in the north now, which they had not been previously. They are controlling main trade roads and routes in and out of Afghanistan. Secondly, Pakistan is not the only spoiler in this conflict currently. There are mercenaries in there that are from many other countries, not just Pakistan. There is also ISIS in there. And other groups that didn’t exist when the Taliban controlled the country before. So, I think it’s a very different landscape than when the Taliban was in control of the country in the 1990s. I think Tariq already made the point that we have Iran in there. We have China and Russia, etcetera. Turkey has become a big player [too]. Someone mentioned the airport. The Americans negotiated with the Taliban to have the Turks take over control of Kabul airport. And, you know, in the end they agreed. The Taliban agreed to that. So, I think the airport is secure for the time being. But I’m just aghast at how things… as I said, I’ve only returned a couple of weeks and things have already changed lightning fast. Erika, your point about how many districts do the Taliban really control? We can’t know this, but they are advancing. Afghan security forces are surrendering. They are not putting up a fight, despite the billions of dollars that have been put into training. And one last point that I want to say – and actually the women parliamentarians were racing this with me last night – is the Afghan Air Force. Once it’s completely turned over to the Afghan Air Force to defend the sky, they will not be able to do that. 

Erika Simpson  

That’s the only part I disagree with you on, Corey, because they did buy a very good air defense system from the French about year ago and they purposely did so to not be reliant on the Americans. So, the Afghan Air Force is actually very capable and has been trained and will continue to be trained by the Americans. If we’re looking at air power, that’s the only point I disagree with you on. I actually think that they will be able to triumph. If that’s the word you want to use, I hate to say that. They will be able to – in terms of air power – protect the urban cities. But the devastation on the ground, we will not have reporters like Doug Saunders sending us grim and horrible photos, because nobody’s there. It’s going to be awful. It’s going to be a bloodbath. And past September. I don’t blame Joe Biden, I understand the reasoning for pulling out and for NATO pulling out after 20 years by 9/11, by September 11. But still, it must be awful for you knowing people on the ground, Corey, I’m very sympathetic. I wish we had more reporters.

Metta Spencer  

Does anybody have a theory about what could have been done differently that would have had a different outcome? This whole fiasco. 20 some years of nothing but trouble, confusion, and failure. What should have happened instead and was there any alternative?

Tariq Rauf  

I would like to focus more on what’s going to happen because what has happened has happened. I think we don’t have that much time. But I would sort of disagree with some of the points made. I don’t think the Taliban have agreed that the Turks will control the Kabul airport. I was just hearing some news conferences – supposedly from the Taliban spokesperson – and they are insisting that they will not accept the Turks or any foreign forces after the end of July… I forget what date that they mentioned. They specifically mentioned Turkey. So, I think this is still a question mark. Part of the challenge of the Afghan forces is supplying their far-flung units and the ones that are surrendering mainly are those that have run out of ammunition. And once they’re out of ammunition, their choice is either to be killed or to surrender. And unfortunately, some special forces that surrendered have been murdered in cold blood by the Taliban, including apparently some reports of the killing of seven pilots that they captured at some particular location. Even during the time of the Afghan Kings and then afterwards… Afghanistan has always been controlled by a number of warring warlords. The central power remains in Kabul as a sort of loose controlling thing. So, they’ve never really had an effective central government. I don’t know whether they will revert to that or not. And finally, NATO forces and the US forces never won the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. They basically hated most of these foreign forces. There are, of course, exceptions. But generally, the way the kill and capture missions of bursting into people’s houses in the middle of the night and going into areas where their women were staying insulted a lot of these people. They just felt insulted in terms of the way they were treated by soldiers of the international forces. Many of them were really not used to the cultural norms and were rarely perceived to be rude and so on. Then, finally, with regard to Pakistan, it has the longest border with Afghanistan. For more than 20 years, it has nearly 3 million Afghan refugees still in there. These people brought the gun culture to the Pakistani society. So, there is now a proxy battle between India and Pakistan. In Afghanistan, the Pakistanis are reporting and showing videos of Indian Air Force transport planes flying through Iranian airspace and bringing weapons to support their supporters in India. So, these so-called infiltrators from Pakistan… I don’t know who they are… whether they are Afghans from the refugee camp. In that case, they wouldn’t be mercenaries, they would be Afghans returning to fight whatever battles they want to fight in Afghanistan. Then you have the Chinese economic interest, you have the Russian interest that this Islamic fundamentalism of the Taliban doesn’t go into the Central Asian republics. I think this is also a problem for the current Pakistani government. That the Pakistani religious extremists will gain even more power in Pakistan than they have. And finally, Taliban is not a singular word. We should refer to them in the plural. It’s not the Taliban is or the Taliban has. It’s the plural of Talib. So, it’s the Taliban are. We don’t say the Americans is.

Erika Simpson  

Tariq, for me, I’ve written a lot of op eds on Afghanistan and have been against the involvement for the last 20 years. I think I was the only academic that was against it from the beginning. And I said foreign involvement in Afghanistan… foreigners will never know the Taliban. I’m not speaking in support of the Taliban at all. But I think intervention by America and the West was a mistake in the wake of 9/11. And on the topic of Taliban is … I believe my copy editors always write Taliban is. It’s not my fault.

Tariq Rauf  

The Taliban are the offshoot of the so-called Mujahideen. The religious fighters supported by the US and Pakistan to beat back the Soviets starting from 1980.  So, this element of a religious fight was brought in from the outsiders. And then the Mujahideen morphed into the Taliban and then an element of those morphed into Al Qaeda. And now another small element has morphed into ISIS, including the people who fled from Iraq and Syria as they were pursued. So this is a long tale and it’s not such a simple story. But I agree with you, Erika, it’s foreign intervention of people sitting in Washington and Brussels who have really very little understanding. They may have PhDs in whatever regional issues, but they have no understanding on the ground. And then I mean, look at the mess in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan – none of these interventions have succeeded anywhere. They’ve only made matters worse. And hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died. Nobody talks about them. We talk about the 2500 American casualties. I forget how many poor Canadians lost their lives and were injured. 

Erika Simpson  

Right.  158. 

Tariq Rauf  

Yeah, but what about the hundreds of thousands of Afghans who were killed in drone strikes? And of course, one shouldn’t forget that more Afghans were killed by the Taliban than the foreign forces. But it’s, you know, a huge mess in there.

Doug Saunders  

I’d like to hear from Erika about how you see how well this 20 years of foreign military operations has succeeded within the narrow area that it was legally and practically supposed to under the UN resolutions that authorized it and the NATO resolutions that authorized international support, which was not to get the Taliban out and it was not to democratize and stabilize Afghanistan. But it was to prevent a foreign militia and an Arab militia – at the time, Al Qaeda was the threat – from establishing itself there to the point that it was able to launch attacks on Western countries. And that was always the narrow definition of the International military operation in Afghanistan. It was the UN Security Council legal rationale for it. You mentioned that ISIS is established there. Has anything changed since the status quo pro ante in 2000?

Erika Simpson  

Well, Tariq’s point about Al Qaeda was kind of… I call it Frankenstein’s monster that came out of the Taliban. And so, you could argue that NATO is successful narrowly in defeating Al Qaeda, so that they weren’t able to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East. So, we could say that NATO was successful narrowly and the US, but widely and Corey would agree with me… that in terms of peace building and building democratic institutions and bringing women in and education, the West was a resounding defeat. And keep in mind too, as Richard knows, all of Canada’s development money – instead of going to Africa and to development in Central America – went to Afghanistan. So, we’ve spent billions and billions of dollars of the world and what is the result? And so, it’s a failure, it’s a resounding failure.

Doug Saunders  

The one thing I kept hearing from military people in support of the results, even though measurably things had not worked out even a decade ago – and it was clear at the point when Canada withdrew – was that it had worked for women. That the rights of women had been secured. Participation of women in politics had improved. Forms of repression of civil life – mandatory purdah and head coverings and so on – at least in major urban areas had fallen apart. Corey, you’ve been watching that closer than anyone. Are things going to fall back to where they were in 1999 or 2000?

Corey Levine  

This is what Afghan women fear the most. But, to be clear, the media has done a good job in sort of highlighting: “Oh, women’s rights, women’s rights.” And the international community has said: “Oh, this is a red line. We’re not going to cross.” But their red lines have been very movable. They talk about it, but there’s no real commitment. But, you know, Afghanistan, despite being a very conservative, traditional, underdeveloped country, there has always been strong women advocates around. One of the women parliamentarians last night was pointing out that they had a female Minister of Health 40 years ago. The Taliban just imposed a very extreme theocratic version and interpretation of Islamic understanding of women’s rights. Needless to say, there were huge gains that were made in 20 years. Those gains haven’t, to a certain extent, really taken root in society. As Erika was pointing out, we have generally had a massive failure on the nation-state building project. And, yeah, I think we’re in very real fear of losing those particular gains. And as everybody else has acknowledged, the Taliban haven’t changed their stripes. I also think they have their frenemies. ISIS-K – the Islamic State in Khorasan – which is the Afghan version of ISIS. It’s hard to say [what is] the dynamic there and I’d be interested to hear what others think about it. On the one hand, I think there is some collaboration on the loose term. They’re engaging with each other. On the other hand, they’re fighting each other. But they are going to not outwardly have a say in what comes next if the Taliban get into government. The Taliban will be very conscious, though, of their interpretation. The Taliban call themselves an Islamic emirate, ISIS call themselves a caliphate. How those differences will play themselves out if/when Taliban get into government will have a huge impact on what happens with women. 

Metta Spencer  

As far as what is visible on the street, what is visible on the street? Do women wear burqas? Has there been a significant change in that kind of thing? If I walked down the street 25 years ago and today, would I see much difference?

Corey Levine  

If you walked down the street just shortly after the Taliban fell or in the intervening years: Yes. I mean, burqas were never compulsory until Taliban came into effect. It’s always been acceptable to wear a hijab. You know, there were the photos when the Soviets were in there of women in miniskirts and short sleeves. That was very sort of isolated in the in the urban centers. Even with my UN colleagues – Afghan UN colleagues – they don’t feel comfortable not wearing a headscarf in a UN compound at work, because it wouldn’t be acceptable amongst their male colleagues. Only a couple of them did not wear a headscarf at work. So, it just goes back to my point that the Taliban didn’t bring in anything in a way that wasn’t there. They just took an extreme version of that. But women will also tell you burqas are not our issue… I mean… 

Metta Spencer  

Really? It would be my issue. I wouldn’t want to wear those things.

Corey Levine  

Okay, having previously had to wear a burqa when I first went there when I traveled outside of Kabul. Yeah, it’s uncomfortable and not fun and hot and stifling. And you can’t see anything really. But they say: “Well, you know, covered up or not covered up, there’s endemic violence against women and girls.” Let’s talk about that. That doesn’t get addressed. There are so many other issues. Women only have – you know, it’s hard to know the real numbers – let’s say 20 to 25% literacy amongst women and girls.

Erika Simpson  

I thought it was higher, Corey, there’s a Canadian study – a government study – and they did a survey. It was something like 95% of Afghan women are illiterate. I was astounded. And then more than 50% have encountered sexual violence. More than 50%. And then child marriages are ubiquitous.

Corey Levine  

Yeah, absolutely. So well, you know, I’m being sort of generous in terms of the… but let’s say 75% illiteracy. 80% of women in girls have experienced some form of gender-based violence. Women have no access to economic resources. So, when you compare those issues to whether I have to wear a chador or not… in a way, it pales in comparison. And I don’t want to speak for Afghan women, but over the 20 years that I’ve been going there, this is pretty much the refrain that I hear.

Metta Spencer  

This is the saddest day. Everything I hear is extremely depressing. And I still have to say – and I know Tariq doesn’t want me to ask this question – but I want to know, what could have been done better? Was this inevitable? In a society like that do we just shrug our shoulders and say: There’s nothing we can do about it?” What should we have done, if anything?

Tariq Rauf  

Well, you know, with the Mujahideen, this was also funded by the Saudis. And with that came the Saudi version of Islam, which is a very restrictive and conservative version called Wahhabism. And the Saudis over the previous decades have funded madrasahs. [These are] religious schools all over the Muslim world, where they only teach children how to read the Quran and memorize it. They do not give them an education in science, social sciences, and so on. So you have many tens of thousands of young boys that have grown up in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, through these madrasahs that are completely under the control of these extremist political religious parties in the name of Islam – wanting a caliphate or a global emirate, and so on. So, coming back to Afghanistan, as was mentioned, during the days of the Shah, I mean, when I was growing up, we used to go to Kabul as children for vacations. And women were part of society. Within the South Asian context, they were they were quite free. But with coming of the Soviets and with the foreign intervention of the Mujahideen, this crazy interpretation of Islam came in and it’s now also spread all over. I mean, for example, the hijab is portrayed to be an Islamic requirement. In fact, it is not. The hijab was actually originally worn by Jewish people in the Middle East region, then a version of it was picked up by Christianity when it came along, and then by Muslims when Muslims came around. But again, it’s been interpreted by these people, mainly men; and now it’s sort of interesting that in Canada and elsewhere young women are wearing it. I personally have no objection. A woman can wear whatever she wants, whenever she wants in whatever way she wants. My objection is to say that hijab is a requirement under Islam. It is not. So, there are sort of broader implications of this phenomenon beyond Afghanistan as well. But I think there is one positive sign in so many of the documentaries that I’ve seen. Even though the Taliban unfortunately may be closing schools and intimidating women, in many families now the men have begun to recognize the importance of educating the girls and women in their family. And they’ve set up informal sort of schools to operate under the radar of the Taliban where they can be given at least some basic education and the girls are very eager to get that education and even take the risk of walking through fields to get to such education. But all of this, likely we don’t know how this will survive if there’s a full Taliban takeover.

Metta Spencer  

Erika, you don’t have to put your hand up. Just butt in. 

Erika Simpson  

Oh, thank you. On Tariq’s very valuable point about what I call the ideology of global Salafism, there is a concept in international relations in the theory – the meta theory of social constructivism – which is called “three generations.” That thinking and ideology like that changes over three generations. So, we can be hopeful that 50 years from now, with the onset of the internet, with secret… with cell phones, which are being banned, and so on. That perhaps the fathers and the patriarchy that we’re seeing and I think it’s – when we’re getting at the roots of it – I think Tariq, it’s male patriarchy not so much global Salafism that’s at its root here. That the fundamental problem is of male tribal warfare thinking. And we need to have what some people call the culture of peace, to combat that, to fight that. And see the words I’m using: combat and fight. But it’s male patriarchy, that is embodied in global Salafism. Those tenets that are starting to appear around the world. So, we need to fight that. And you can only do that with people like Doug, the media, computers, the internet, and cell phones – and then we’ll win in three generations.

Doug Saunders  

I wonder given that as Tariq points out and as Erika notes, there’s a disjunction between the authoritarian politics of theocracy – which I think Erika is quite right – which tend to be a much more of a misogynist politics rather than a specifically religious politics and the lived experiences of women in those states. Tariq points out that regardless of what’s happening with the Taliban, the education rate of women has increased quite a bit, and maybe ratcheted back somewhat, but it is hard to reverse. And, of course, the outstanding example there is Iran, which has always, or at least since the 1980s, had the very highest rate of university education of women in the Middle East and one of the highest rates in the world. It’s far higher than the rate of women. And of course, if you’ve spent any time in Iran, you know it’s an almost matriarchal society on the streets. The intelligentsia and the creative class are women. People driving cars or women in Iran. But, there’s this disjunction between that and the theocratic government and their official controls. It always feels in Iran, like it’s a tension that can never hold for much longer, because society is so out of step with what the government claims society is. I think Erika is right that that’s because it’s a defensive gender-based posture rather than a strictly religious posture. Will that change? Would a higher rate of education of women cause change sooner in Iran and eventually in Afghanistan?

Corey Levine  

Your example, Doug, of Iran is really interesting. I spent a year working in Iraq several years ago and since the fall of Saddam… You know, under Saddam, Iraqi woman had the highest rates of education and university education and were amongst the most educated women in the Arab and Muslim world. And since the fall of the former regime that has been dialed back incredibly. Women are no longer as you know, getting the kinds of education and have access to the [various] kinds of education. They’re getting married much earlier. So, I guess I’m using Iraq as an example. You can have those rights for decades and decades, but obviously they are very easily eroded. So, I guess I tend to be a bit more pessimistic about how many of these kinds of gains that have been made will really remain.

Tariq Rauf  

A short comment about Iran: The last time I was there in Tehran, in the area where I was, roughly 50% of the people driving cars were women and a number of those cars just had women in them or a man was sitting next to the woman but the woman was driving.

Metta Spencer  

Okay, you know, I’m impressed by the fact that we have so many Afghan experts here. But I am also mindful that we have some people who are also quite knowledgeable about non-proliferation and the upcoming conference. So, I would be loathed to have us end this conversation without turning, at least briefly, to anticipating what’s going to happen. And Tariq, would you give us – if you don’t mind – your guess as to where we’re going with the NPT Review?

Tariq Rauf  

Okay, so NPT Review Conferences are held every 5 years. And the last one was supposed to be held in April-May of 2020 and it got postponed repeatedly because of the COVID pandemic. It was first proposed to be held in January of this year [2021]. But then conditions were not right in New York and then it got postponed to be held in August of this year [2021], that date too has fallen by the wayside. Then there were proposals to hold it in the beginning of January [2022], from the 4th of January; but that overlaps with the first meeting of State Parties of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which will be held in Vienna from the 12th to the 14th. So, the alternate dates that were proposed were from the 17th of January, but the Chinese have objected because it overlaps with their presidency of the Conference on Disarmament and also with the Chinese New Year. And also, it was pointed out that in order to not hold the session of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, it requires a decision and that’s not likely to come. So, we are sort of stuck. A compromise proposal is to hold a shorter review conference in December this year (2021), starting from December 6th. But then a lot of the countries where people celebrate Christmas, they’re not too happy about it, because they don’t want to give up that Christmas, because in many Western countries have for the first time in two years the ability to spend Christmas with their families. My personal view is that we should postpone it to 2022. We have really no reason to hold an NPT Conference. I mean, it would have been good to have held it, but we don’t need to. Nothing needs to be decided. The Non-Proliferation Treaty will not fall away. We don’t have a Review Conference. Given the state of relations between the US and Russia and the US and China and the complete lack of progress on nuclear disarmament and nuclear modernization projects underway, a Review Conference now is not likely to yield any agreement on what’s to happen on nuclear disarmament. A lot of talk now is on bridge building between the weapon states and the non-weapon states and also on the relationship between the Ban Treaty supporters and its opponents. And so, everyone is now talking about nuclear risk reduction. So, the best measure of nuclear risk reduction is to have eventually no nuclear weapons. But who increased all the risks? It’s the nuclear weapon states. Through their modernization programs. Through their changes in doctrine of early use of nuclear weapons. The US now is thinking of using nuclear weapons to deter cyber-attacks under certain cases. Russians want to resort to nuclear weapons early if they feel they are losing a conventional war. We also have this issue of no first use. And here I think I’m going to antagonize many people on this panel. I personally don’t think no first use gets us anything. It just is another way of losing our efforts on promoting disarmament. And there are many agreements between Russia and the US from the height of the Cold War: Prevention of Dangerous Military Activities; the Incidents at Sea [Agreement]; nuclear risk reduction centers; and this current discussion and nuclear risk reduction has complete amnesia about this. So, if we were implementing those, we wouldn’t be having these incidents like in the Black Sea, where this British ship apparently challenged the waters that the Russians were defending. You have Russian bombers flying around the coast of North America. NATO bombers on the borders of Russia and basically raising the tensions. I also wanted to use this opportunity to show this book. This is by Ambassador Alexander Kmentt. It is called the “Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.” It’s a very detailed book, which provides the negotiating history of how the Nuclear Ban Treaty came about, through its various sort of episodes, like the nuclear ban treaty meetings in Mexico. 

Metta Spencer  

Who is the author? Please tell me. I’ve never heard of him. 

Tariq Rauf  

This is Ambassador Alexander Kmentt. He is one of the people responsible for the treaty. He’s part of the core group and part of the Austrian foreign ministry group that held the Vienna Conference with the Austrian pledge on Disarmament that got the support of 159 states. So, this is the inside story of the core group of states: Mexico, Brazil, Austria, New Zealand, and Ireland – whose diplomatic efforts led to the Ban Treaty. ICAN was very useful in promoting international support. But the work inside the UN system, on getting the resolutions to negotiate the treaty and then [actually] negotiating the treaty, etc. was done by states. So, this complements the excellent book by Ray Acheson, which describes the role of civil society. This describes the role of states and the so-called non-nuclear weapons states. 

Metta Spencer  

You said you don’t have much hope that the “no first use” or what may also be called “sole purpose” would do much of anything. Then what would you consider the next promising forward step? 

Tariq Rauf  

Well, I understand where no first use is coming from. But it’s basically saying: “My house is full of guns” and I’m telling my neighbor that I’m not going to shoot him or her. But, if I change my mind, I have all the resources to use them [nuclear weapons]. Sole purpose is more. It’s a little bit more useful because one can say nuclear weapons should only be used to respond to or deter a nuclear attack. But again, that’s a verbal promise. It is not subject to verification. So, the best way is to have a follow-on treaty to New Start, which fortunately the Russians and Americans extended. It’s valid until 2026 and gives us 5 years. And so now, the new talk is – and I hosted a webinar with Rose Gottemoeller, the US negotiator of New Start; and Alexey Arbatov – a senior Russian parliamentary delegate; and so on – the 2 sides are actually thinking about all nuclear weapons, regardless of range – medium range, short range, and weapons that can threaten national existence and so on. The stumbling block still is the Russians also want to talk about the anti-ballistic missile systems and the Americans don’t. But there might be a way of finessing that. There’s also this issue where the Americans want to bring in China and then the Russian say: “Well, in that case, we also want France and the UK at the table.” As you know, the UK said that it will not go down to below 200 warheads. They have established a ceiling of 250. This does not mean that they will build up to 250. But that leaves the possibility there. And they are building new ballistic missile submarines. The US also wants to build them. People don’t realize that all British submarine launched ballistic missiles are actually American ballistic missiles leased from the US. And the US cooperates with the British in designing the warhead for it because the warhead has to fit on the missiles. And the missiles have to fit in the British submarine. So here you have very close nuclear weapons cooperation between the UK and the United States. Canada, unfortunately, is still part of those countries that’s resisting the nuclear weapons ban treaty. NATO just reaffirmed it has a new concept where they repeated this whole thing as long as nuclear weapons exist; the NATO countries will have an appropriate mix and so on. The current Secretary General wanted to extend NATO’s remit all the way to China. President Macron sort of reined them in and said: “North Atlantic means North Atlantic.” I’d be happy to hear Erika’s views on some of these issues.

Metta Spencer  

Richard, you haven’t spoken yet. I wonder, does IPPNW have a position? Or is it more like a networking for people with very different positions? What would you say is the prevailing opinion within IPPNW about the next most promising advance toward disarmament? I know that IPPNW was very much a sponsor of the ICAN project.

Richard Denton  

Correct. Certainly, IPPNW strongly supports ICAN and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and feels that is the way to go. I think I’m fairly simplistic. When at the NPT, it works by consensus, which means that someone has the veto and as a result nothing happens. The TPNW came about using the UN General Assembly voting system, which was sort of a two thirds majority. And but you had 122 countries out of 124 that agreed to it. So, to me that pretty much was consensus in terms of mutual understanding. What I also wonder though, is that do we need a third party or third forum? Because the nine nuclear countries said that they’re not attending the TPNW. We’ve got a few NATO countries and that they will attend as observers. You’ve got the Swedish proposals of 17 countries and they are proposing 22 or something different resolutions to move forward. But I’m just wondering – either Erika or Tariq – your thoughts on yet a third party? We in Rotary are trying to bring and get Rotary as another middle power to bring various groups together. With IPPNW, it’s all the health and World Health Organizations that are supporting ICAN and the TPNW. But I’m just wondering if we should have again another disarmament conference that would be on neutral ground to bring in the 9 nuclear countries. Now, I know Tariq has suggested that it begin with 5 or 7 and exclude Israel and North Korea. I’d appreciate your thoughts on that. 

Erika Simpson  

Tariq, I want to congratulate you on your survey there of all the issues that are reigning right now. I thought that was fantastic. I want to listen to that again. And so, Richard, your concept of a neutral disarmament conference somewhere, I want to connect to Afghanistan, because that was what we talked about a lot. And if you looked at how the decision was made to withdraw from Afghanistan, Donald Trump said he was going to withdraw and was opposed within by the Pentagon and so on. But the final decision that Trump made was criticized by the Germans and the Italians and they said fervently: “We can’t leave Afghanistan.” Then Joe Biden came in power. And on April the 10th, he said: “We’re withdrawing.” And right away the same day, NATO said they were pulling out. So, this, to me is a lesson of American hegemony that the United States dominates NATO. So long as NATO is dominated by the United States, we’re not going to get any changes. We’re not going to get any changes to NATO Strategic Concept, we’re not going to get any changes at the NPT. So, if I’m in civil society, and I want something effective, then I’m going to run for no first use because it’s understandable to Americans. No first use as opposed to sole use. And so, I can understand why PNND, civil society, and ICAN are all going for no first use. It’s something. It’s a low-lying fruit. We can grab it and maybe we can run with it. But until the United States decides that it wants to move toward disarmament, we’re not going to get anywhere. I’ve been to every NPT review Conference and seen how effective Tariq is there since 2000. And I think that until the United States decides that it’s going to take action, then Canada is going to be hypocritical on deterrence Canada’s can continue to vacillate and say we support NATO, the Strategic Concept, and deterrence. We’re not going to move anywhere until the United States changes. That’s why I want to move – if I could – to Washington, but I’m here in London, Ontario. Well right now, I’m in British Columbia, where my brother is running for the Green Party, so I’m helping him for a week in a good winnable riding. 

Metta Spencer  

I’d like to hear Tariq’s response to Richard’s question. Is it a good idea to have a new conference on neutral territory? 

Tariq Rauf  

Yeah, I think it’s a good idea, but the nuclear weapon states are not going to come. We already have the forum in Geneva – the Conference on Disarmament – where if they wanted to have discussions, they could have discussions. All of them are there, including North Korea. But they don’t want to discuss it there. The NPT, fortunately, is the only forum where five [of the] nuclear weapon states respond and explain their strategies. They do not do it in the General Assembly or in Geneva. It’s only in the NPT where they feel constrained. They are feeling threatened by the ban treaty, which is why their response is so strong. Because these days, you cannot stand up on TV or tweet that nuclear weapons are good and bring peace and security. The new generation that is coming up is watching British Columbia, California, and Australia burn. They see where the world is heading. And they see that billions of dollars or trillions are being spent on nuclear weapons. And here are these young people struggling with student debt, they don’t know what jobs they will be able to get. They can’t afford to buy their own houses and so on. So, their priorities are very different. And I think physicians and others, we need to target the younger people, because they are the ones who will affect change. They now have the numbers; they have the communications tools that are way smarter than at least I am with all kinds of things. WhatsApp has been superseded by other tools that I hear about. So, no first use was considered by Obama, but then he ran out of time and then Biden had made supporting statements when he was Vice President. But as President, I doubt very much he will have the space to agree to no first use. And this is one of the reasons why for the past two years, I’ve been pushing to move the NPT review conference out of New York to Vienna, because Washington is two hours away from New York. And in every review conference, when the going gets tough, we get a phalanx of American officials and they come and beat down progressive elements in the non-nuclear weapon states, including us in Canada when I used to be part of the Canadian delegation. And then we would get intimidated for a whole variety of reasons because we are very much vulnerable given our trade and so on. The pushback doesn’t come on the issue for issue. It comes in other areas.

Metta Spencer  

Okay, well, that’s a long discussion of all kinds of other possible actions. It didn’t really respond to Richard’s proposal, but maybe we should have a youth get together or something. I’m in favor of anything anybody proposes here. But time’s up. So, it’s been fun and interesting and important. And I’m very grateful to all of you for it. Say Goodbye. Thank you. 

[All panelists say Good Bye and Thank You.]

Project Save the World Podcast / Talk Show Episode Number: 154
Panelists: Paul Copeland, Martin Klein, Louis Kriesberg, and Doug Saunders
Host: Metta Spencer

Date Aired:  29 December 2020
Date Transcribed and Verified:  10 March 2021 (DM) / 28 May 2021 (AW)
Transcription: Otter.ai
Transcription Review and Edits: David Millar and Adam Wynne 

Martin Klein  

Well, what are you thinking about Canada?

Doug Saunders  

It’s a question that’s been on my mind. The sense I get from Canadian foreign policy,  from the foreign minister, and a lot of other places, is that they’re basically biding their time until the next US president comes into office, particularly around issues surrounding China, although, of course, also climate and things like that, which also involves China. And there’s a sense that Biden’s approach to China will be less unilateral and more of a mixture of engagement and confrontation than the purely confrontational approach of the Trump administration. But I think that the question in the air is: how do you do that? And I think Metta asked that earlier. How does a US president interact with China in a way that brings a consensus of democratic countries together around the question, avoids a second Cold War, but also wields some sticks along with the carrots to deal with the ethnic prosecutions and human rights abuses and crushing of democracy in Hong Kong?

Metta Spencer  

If, there were no human rights issues, either in Russia or China, I wouldn’t have any problem. I mean, the economic competition shouldn’t be problematic, and let them do what they please, in terms of, you know, building roads in Africa, or whatever they want to do, or, you know, a silk road across Asia. It’s the human rights thing. And I don’t have an answer to how you try to impose any kind of pressure on any country to really effectively change the human rights policy. The question of what to do about defending the Rohingya is exactly the same question is how you would take care of the Uighurs, you know, if China were not being so hard on the Uighurs and on Hong Kong,

Doug Saunders  

Are there approaches that countries like Canada and the United States should be taking, that they aren’t?

Louis Kriesberg  

I wonder if a strategy of more positive benefits from not imposing nasty human rights violation, if you’re just exhorting people to be nice and decent and we will hit you if you don’t be nice — may be counterproductive rather than winning over some idea that if you want to be progressive and have wellbeing for your people, you’re better off, allowing them to become cooperative helpmates in production. And it’s hard to coerce people to be nice. And there are mutual gains to be had. You waste energy. The Soviet Union by being so harsh on its own people, obviously was self-destructive. But I think partly, in some cases, maybe in China, they’re afraid that one thing can lead to another and they don’t want to go the way the Soviet Union went, which they, I think, think of as a bad example.

Paul Copeland  

The Canadian Friends of Burma started falling apart in 2013, when the first attacks on the Rohingya occurred in western Burma. And what I found was that most of the Burmese in the group had no sympathy whatsoever for the Rohingya. And it just blew the organization apart. So, I’ve been following the Rohingya stuff a lot. And I don’t see any movement at all from Aung San Suu Kyi or people in Burma towards any relaxation of anything. You know, they talk occasionally about repatriation, but I think it’s all a myth as far as the Burmese Government is concerned. 

Metta Spencer  

Paul, I mean, I am always I’m looking for, you know, prescriptions. And I don’t know. I mean, it seems to me it’s a good thing the Gambia took this thing to the World Court. But that’s gonna take several years. What good is that going to do? Even Lou might say, that’s not a good idea, because that’s of coercive, I don’t know. What more can one do? Tell them that they would benefit more if they’d be nice? I mean, I’m sorry, I’m really looking for answers. 

Doug Saunders  

If I understand what I’ve heard Paul, saying right before and others on this topic. The problem with what Lou’s suggesting is that the regime in Burma vis-a-vis the Rohingya and I think equally as much, the regime in China vis-a-vis the Uighurs, they think they are being nice. They think within their own internal logic, that they are providing security for maybe somebody who’s not that particular ethnic group. They think they are keeping back something that’s a threat to their country. And, I think, within the perspective of the elites and leadership in Burma, what they hear from their internal circles is constant affirmation of this. And there’s this problem that if you’re a foreign government, trying to put them on the right path, and so on, it’s very easy to “code” those foreign governments as being part of this invasion or part of this threat from outside. It’s not just Aung San Suu Kyi who has decided to launch a violent campaign of expulsion against the against the Rohingya… it’s a consensus within the ruling class and ethnic groups in Burma, if I understand correctly, Paul. How do you break through that?

Paul Copeland  

I don’t know. I mean, that’s my impression is that the Burmese, the Burmans, are supportive of the harsh dealing with the Rohingya,

Louis Kriesberg  

Ethnic conflicts are serious and they just seem to be persistent, without resolution — and the Rohingya is, in my little knowledge, I kind of put that in the same order. There’s a dominant ethnic group which wants to be in charge of everything. And then there’s ideologies that support the dreadful stuff that happens. 

Metta Spencer  

They’re all united about hating the Rohingya. That’s maybe the main thing they all agree on. And I don’t know to what extent these ethnic conflicts have been overcome. And the current government is —

Martin Klein  

Is anybody within Burma sympathetic to the Rohingya? I mean, clearly Aung San Suu Kyi has been forced [and is] involved in an uneasy alliance with the military. And she doesn’t, whatever she would do, it’s politic for her not to support the Rohingya. But how about these other ethnic minorities? Do they support each other? Do they, I assume they want a federal state? 

Doug Saunders  

We’ve seen a resurgence of sort of Buddhist chauvinist politics that some people would say is sort of a set of ideas that have spread all around the Buddhist-triangle countries of Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand. And it does tend to view those ethnic minorities in those countries who are Muslim as being invaders, which is something you also see in China. The notion that the Uighurs are not just one of China’s many ethnic groups, but are somehow invaders who’ve arrived late on the scene. And you see that in India too, frankly, right? A lot of the Hindu politics is based on the idea that Urdu-speakers are invaders who came late to the game. And I think it’s a little bit like how Jews were viewed in early 20th century Europe as invaders, partly because people had witnessed a lot of refugees coming in from Ashkenazi populations driven out by pogroms, but mainly because it was an idea that once it caught hold, it was easy to say, even if it’s an ethnic or religious group that’s been there as long as anyone else. So I do wonder if this is a wider problem across countries that have Buddhist nationalist leadership.

Paul Copeland  

When I’ve been in Burma and also when I’ve been in Canada, I’ve been in contact and met with leaders of the Karen community, and leaders of the Kachin community. The Karin are on the Thai-Burma border and the Kachin are up on the northern border with China. And both of those groups are mainly Christian.

Martin Klein  

Does that mean they’re hostile to Islam?

Paul Copeland  

I don’t really know. It wasn’t an issue when I was meeting with them.

Doug Saunders  

And, Paul, do you feel that groups like the Karen get a more sympathetic treatment from the Burmese regime than the Rohingya do? Perhaps for religious reasons?

Paul Copeland  

I don’t know about religious reasons. There’s certainly been fighting with the Karen and the Burmese Government. It’s fairly mild right now. But I was in Manerplaw, which was the headquarters and met again with some of the leaders.

Metta Spencer  

Well, you know, they’ve got all these ceasefires, but what does that really amount to? Are these conflicts really over? And I don’t know whether all of them have even signed or reached a ceasefire agreement. But my impression is that most of the tribal or I don’t know what language I want to use for this, but ethnic conflicts other than the Rohingya have been sort of resolved, and the government would be functioning if it weren’t so screwed up about the Rohingya. Is that a fair way of looking at it?

Paul Copeland  

 No.

Metta Spencer  

No? Okay.

Paul Copeland  

Well, what they’ve been trying to negotiate in Burma is something called Panglong 2. Aung San when he first was in power negotiated Panglong 1, which contemplated the ethnic minorities staying in Burma for 10 years and then they could decide whether to get out. And they’ve been trying to negotiate Panglong 2, and I’ve been on — up until this month, actually, I was on the Board of the Associates to Develop Democratic Burma, led by a guy named Harn Yawngwhe. Aung San Suu Kyi has basically eliminated Harn Yawngwhe from participating and getting into Burma, although the organization is still working there. But it doesn’t seem to be getting very far on a Panglong 2 agreement. 

Metta Spencer  

And she’s excluding him because he’s basically a good guy?

Paul Copeland  

That would be my impression.

Louis Kriesberg  

After the horrors of World War Two, a lot of countries learned a lesson the hard way that such madness is self-destructive. And, I wonder if the vision of Europe, of an economic community really helped mitigate some of that for a while and in the longtime even. The immediate response in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was the Russians who would become settled there couldn’t really be citizens, because they weren’t ethically Estonian, Latvian, [ and Lithuanian] — and the European Economic Community said; “No, no, no, you can’t do that. You shouldn’t do that. And you can’t do that.” And they did make sure that it was possible that, yeah, those Russians could be Lithuanian and citizenship could not be denied because they didn’t speak that language at home. But there have been that kind of attempts in larger settled areas. In a way, for example: for Spain, dealing with minorities was eased by being part of Europe, the whole idea of what your identity was got layered in European. It doesn’t end all troubles, but it is perhaps one path.

Martin Klein  

You know, in Eastern Europe, the issue goes back to the breakup of the Great Empires, both the Russian and Hapsburg Empires. In the 1920s, the question came up with both Jews and Gypsies. And I don’t know the detail. Some of you may know better than I, the the Hungarian/Romanian issue in Transylvania. But the question came up of nationality. In Africa, there have been lots of wars. In most countries, the fact is that you can’t open the Pandora’s box. You commit suicide. In fact, wars have been disastrous, no matter — except the Wars of Liberation and even those have had problems – but where you have a multi-ethnic community… I mean, I tend to feel that people are better off in a multi-ethnic community, but only if there are rules of the game where you accept other people’s religions; and the tragedy of Yugoslavia is that it was working well, and that most people, most Yugoslavs, supported it. And when it broke down, the appeals to ethnic nationalism produce horrible, horrible results that came out of nowhere.

Metta Spencer  

The current equivalent to the Yugoslavia situation — except it’s not a matter of breaking up a country but reviving conflicts between countries —is the thing that started with the Nagorno-Karabakh situation. I did an interview last week with Irakli Kakabadze in Georgia, who runs now a Gandhian kind of foundation. And I’ll be doing something with him tomorrow, that’ll be relevant to that too. But he scared the daylights out of me. He said that, as you know, the Russians are now back in control of Nagorno-Karabakh, or rather the territories around it, this sort of buffer zone. And they’ve got the deal with Turkey and Azerbaijan, and they’re trying to make a relationship with about four or five other countries in the region. And he says the Armenians are convinced that there’s going to be a renewal of genocide, that the Armenians are going to be killed and are being right now. There are human rights violations and atrocities going on. So, I’ve got to try to figure out who in Canada knows a darn thing about what’s going on in that region. I don’t know of any organizations or groups of expatriates, you know, ethnic groups working on it, but clearly the Armenian situation doesn’t look very bright now and we’re not hearing about it.

Martin Klein  

But the problem in the in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is really the great flaw of nationalism. That it is almost impossible to create national borders. And it’s almost impossible because people move across borders. People move in ethnic niches, people move. The Israelis are committed to it being a Jewish state. And the Estonians want Estonia to be an Estonian state. And that’s impossible because there are always minorities. 

Metta Spencer  

There are murders going on even now. Then, what you do, you know, you can’t just, you know, get in a pulpit and start inveighing against nationalism, you got to do something much more, you know, muscular.

Doug Saunders  

I think Russia’s role… I mean, Turkey’s being unambiguous — in backing these areas, which it doesn’t really need to do. There’s no economic interest in this. And the geostrategic interest is, is a little hard to sort out because you’re in danger of pissing off Iran and getting them into the game too, just to make a further mess of things. While the Russians have nominally supported the Armenians in this, because Russia has a big military base in Armenia, it’s traditionally sided with Armenia in these things. And it’s, until recently it kind of stayed out of this one. What you’re hearing, Metta, and what I’m hearing is that Russia is now doing things — but it’s a little unclear what it is doing. And yes, there have been atrocities in Nagorno-Karabakh and the impartial people have documented them. I don’t think it quite amounts to a second Armenian Genocide or something like that, but it’s enough to be very disturbing. It’s the sort of it’s the sort of targeting of civilians that, as you said, resembles the Yugoslav wars a bit. And it certainly sounds like the ceasefire isn’t much of a ceasefire,

Louis Kriesberg  

Is there any chance of recovery of Canadian leadership that it really had for a while? I know it does do work in international development and it has some good reputation for that.

Metta Spencer  

Lou, I think that Canadians, and I say this as an American who has spent more of my life now in Canada than I did in the US. So, I’m a Canadian and American, but more Canadian now. And I would say Canadians are among the most parochial people in the world. There is no sense of wanting to be to be the Empire in charge of things. There’s something like, we go as far as our borders and we don’t aspire to leadership in the world, even though we aspire to be “good citizens” in the world. You know, I’m trying to be provocative and I’m sure Doug is gonna swat me down.

Doug Saunders  

No, I’m actually going to agree with you to an extent. I think, when you listen to what other countries with conflict want to learn from Canada, it’s not so much the multiculturalism thing, it should be probably and successfully being a polyglot, pluralist country and all that stuff. But it’s how we manage Quebec nationalism. And the funniest example of that was a maybe a dozen years ago, maybe a little longer, I was in northern Sri Lanka, in the area controlled by the LTTE, by the Tamil Tigers, which they sort of turned into a pseudo-state a little like North Korea or something. And there were hardly any signs or anything. There were no businesses or anything. It was just a militarized area. We drove past a giant billboard with faces of various leaders on it and a whole lot of writing in Tamil that I didn’t understand, but one English phrase written in boldface, which was “asymmetrical federalism”, which is a phrase I had not thought anyone outside of Canada used. And I asked one of our translators, I said: “What’s that billboard about?” And he said: “Oh, it’s to celebrate, there was a peace mission that came in and was led by some guy named Bob Rae.” 

[all chuckling] 

Metta Spencer  

I love that. 

Martin Klein  

Canada does play a role, largely in part because we never had colonies, except internal colonies. And my wife attended one of the ILO’s annual sessions. She was part of the Canadian delegation and Canada played a role in negotiating an agreement which Canada was not likely to support. Because they negotiate these agreements. And if they bind the government in ways the government doesn’t like, the government may play a role in negotiating them, but then they’re dead letter. We’re one of those countries that that plays a role because we can talk to everybody.

Doug Saunders  

The role of Canada as a neutral arbiter has been historically useful. There are a number of people now who say that just doesn’t work anymore, that there’s no place for a neutral arbiter

Metta Spencer  

The whole issue of indigenous rights and, and the need to honour their heritage and so on. I don’t really want to use this word, but I… ssh… don’t tell anybody I said this, I think it’s a fad. I mean, it’s the kind of thing that suddenly became – over the last couple… two or three years – an very important element of Canadian discourse. It’s not that I’m opposed to it as an issue. I think it’s great that we think about it, but I can’t, I don’t really understand why it’s happening now, in particular. Now, rather than 10 years ago, or, you know, 50 years ago.

Martin Klein  

I think Trudeau opened Pandora’s box and it’s hard to retreat. He awakened desires in the Aboriginal community that he wasn’t ready to fulfill. And, so he’s ended up getting his fingers burned. But I think he’s pushed the issue in the center stage. And I think there’s an articulate native leadership, that’s not going to let him back down. The aborigines don’t have votes in Parliament, they’re only about 3% of the population. But they have issues on which they can mobilize sympathy.

Doug Saunders  

First Nations and Inuit populations are the fastest growing populations in Canada by quite a wide margin. And it’s being experienced. And they’re largely an urban population. And it’s being experienced, I think, by them as a return from the decimation. Decimation is the wrong word. What do you call when something’s cut to 1/10th its former size? That having happened to its population in Canada’s first century and a half, is now recovering. And so, I think you do have a new generation and sort of political awakening, that, I think some of the seeds were planted in the 1970s, when you had a first political awakening. And you also had the Canadian Supreme Court’s recognition that the treaties reached between Britain especially and also France and the tribes of Canada are part of the constitution. That they are constitutional documents of Canada and therefore implicitly there’s a shared sovereignty between the First Peoples of Canada and the descendants of the settlers. And I think that the constitutional implications of those decisions have yet to fully play out, and they’re combining with that demographic surge in an interesting way.

Metta Spencer  

Is there anything equivalent in other countries? I mean, I don’t see it in the US on the same scale. 

Doug Saunders  

New Zealand’s gone much further in incorporating the politics and culture and language of its Indigenous peoples into the very fabric of the country itself, including it’s flag. 

Louis Kriesberg  

At Syracuse University, every meeting is introduced by reminding people that we are on Haudenosaunee land.

Doug Saunders  

Even in the States, I didn’t know title acknowledgements had — 

Metta Spencer  

I did not know either.

Louis Kriesberg  

— and Biden has appointed as the Secretary of the Interior, for the first time, a Native Indigenous person.

Martin Klein  

I’m amazed that in the long period of American history, she’s the first Native person appointed to a federal Cabinet Office. 

Louis Kriesberg  

Yes.

Doug Saunders  

You know, I should say Canada’s hardly virtuous in this area, too. I think our first Indigenous cabinet ministers are pretty recent and of course native Canadians [First Nations people] didn’t even have the vote until, I think, 1960 or 1961.