Humanist Perspectives: issue 166: Militarism in Canada and the World:
What Do We Do About It?

Militarism in Canada and the World:
What Do We Do About It?
by Murray Thomson

I. Introduction

Militarism today is bad for the global economy, terrible for the environment, hugely destructive of human rights and of life itself, and a major risk to the future of humanity.

Why then, do we put up with it? Why is it virtually ignored, not only by Parliament, the media and the general public, but also, with some notable exceptions, by fellow member NGOs working in international development, education and the environment? The answer, I believe, lies in its complexity. Military action in the past was considered to be essential for our survival. Moreover, certain values which we hold dear are also associated with the military. These values and qualities include personal fortitude, bravery and a willingness to sacrifice one's life for a higher cause. Unfortunately, the institutions in which these values are nurtured have now become the single biggest threat to our common security and our lives.

What it is not

It is important to recognize that not everything associated with the military can be called militarism. There are degrees of it, just as there are degrees of pacifism. There are military personnel who do not hold militarist views, and there are civilians who do. Historian Andrew Becevich, who spent 20 years in the army, referring to the expansion of a "homeland security state", said that "it's militarized civilians who conceive the world as such a dangerous place that military power has to predominate, (and) that constitutional constraints on the military need to be loosened" .

When one tries to define a culture of peace and a culture of war, one finds positions somewhere between them. If militarism were full-blown in Canada today, as it was in Nazi Germany, or as it now is in Burma, then I would not likely be able to publish this article.


Militarism is defined by Webster as "the continuous and belligerent maintenance of strong armed forces". Oxford says it is "reliance on military strength and methods". The Houghton Mifflin Canadian Dictionary goes even further: It is "the glorification of the ideals of a professional military class", and "the predominance of the military in the administration or policy of the state."

The global reach

Militarism in Canada cannot be separated from militarism world-wide. The economist Kenneth Boulding wrote that the world military system is a single system, in which the component national forces derive their legitimacy, and therefore their budgets, from rival national and military forces. Recognizing this, he said, "is an important step towards achieving a collapse of the legitimacy of military organizations".

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith has written that "the modern military establishment, in the organizations it dominates, the money it controls, the politicians it commands, the scientific community it subsidizes, and under the cloak of patriotism that protects it, has become a polar force in its own right. It embraces and controls the civilian authority that legally and constitutionally is presumed to be the source of its restraint."

As Canada expands its military, so do most other countries, with the annual global military bill coming to $1.4 trillion, enabling huge expansions of destructive power. Russia has commissioned another batch of new intercontinental ballistic missiles which, its military boasts, can hit targets more than 6,000 miles away and penetrate any prospective missile shield . China continues to expand and modernize its nuclear forces, has deployed long-range ballistic missiles and is building up to four new ballistic missile submarines .

Even small island states in the South Pacific have planned national armies to defend themselves. Against whom? Why, other island states involved in the same process, while arms manufacturers cheerfully watch their profits rise. An estimated 600 million small arms now circulate in the world today, weapons which do most of the killing, maiming, abducting and destroying in the world today. (See, also, the Militarization of Space, below).

II. The Dimensions of Militarism

Thirty-nine years ago I wrote a peace research review entitled "Militarism 1969: A survey of world trends" . It concluded with this summary: "Militarism is a function of several interdependent social policies and processes. It is these which strengthen and maintain militarism, rather than a single root condition or cause. Namely:

  1. Militarism is maintained by the continued manufacture, purchase and exchange of arms.
  2. It is fed by the recruitment and training of armed forces. These include regular members of military units, reserves, militia, Special Forces, mercenaries and heavily armed police.
  3. It is nourished through Military Pacts and by bilateral or multilateral defence treaties based on a perceived enemy.
  4. It is supported by the cult and practice of secret intelligence agencies.
  5. Militarism grows in a social climate characterized by nationalism, patriotism and an over-emphasis on authority, buttressed by attitudes which stress the perversity and weakness of human nature.
  6. It is fostered by economic, political and military interest groups which resist social change, and who benefit materially from the arms trade.
  7. Finally, it is enhanced by those who believe that only violent means can overcome severe social injustice.
  8. Additionally, militarism today is also enhanced by the media that offer their op-eds, columns and editorials unequally to lobbyists and think-tank writers, funded by defence departments and their allies.

In short, militarism involves a mindset which believes that enemies exist both now and in the future, and which can only be defended against, or defeated, by force of arms. This mindset, in fact, closely resembles the raison d'être for each of the 190 Departments of Defence in the world today.

III. Current Trends & Realities

The dimensions of militarism globally, identified in 1969, are still with us today, forty years later. Here are seven of them as they apply to Canada:.

1. Defence spending, procurement and the armed forces

Bill Robinson and Steve Staples of the Rideau Institute found that Canada's military spending will reach $18.24 billion in the current year, an increase of 9% over the previous year . After the next two years of planned increases it will be 37% higher than it was in 2000-2001.

According to the CBC News of 20th June/08, the Conservative government will spend $490 billion over the next 20 years "to ensure Canadian soldiers are well-equipped, well-trained and highly active."

The Ottawa Business Journal and the advertisements placed there by CADSI, the Canadian Assn. of Defence & Security Industries, describe the major procurements and projects the government has announced,… for frigate life extension, a strategic and tactical airlift fleet, heavy to medium life helicopters, logistics trucks, joint support ships, new tanks and other vehicle acquisitions .

It should be said that much Canadian defence procurement has multi-purpose capacities: for war-making, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. All told, the Canadian government has given about $5 billion to defence corporations over the past 30 years in grants and unrepaid loans. The Canada Pension Plan has invested more billions of dollars in several war companies, including some of the world's top weapon makers. The Canadian Cadet Program, at a cost of $155 million (2002-2003 estimates) has included 56,000 Canadian youth 12 to 18 years of age .

2. Canada embedded in a Military Alliance

Canada joined NATO in 1949 seeing it as a defensive alliance against the threat of Soviet expansion in Europe. The Cold War ended almost 20 years ago but NATO, rather than ending, as did the Warsaw Pact, has expanded its borders and members to 26. President Bush now seeks NATO membership for the Ukraine, Georgia, Macedonia, Albania and Croatia. Its military wages war in Afghanistan, and its nuclear weapon policies, supported by Canada, threaten to destroy the Non Proliferation Treaty and its 13 Steps for nuclear disarmament. Those policies state that nuclear weapons are to be maintained and improved indefinitely. They can be targeted on non-nuclear-weapon states, can be kept in Europe, and are "essential for peace" At least 100 NATO nuclear warheads are, in fact, now stored in non-nuclear-weapon states in Europe. All of these policies violate the Articles of the NPT .

3. Maintaining secrecy on military-related security policies

In a Globe and Mail Op-Ed on May 1, 2008, former Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy warned readers that "secrecy is a nasty virus that can lay low the body politic". He referred to the Maher Arar case, where a Canadian was sent off to be tortured in a Syrian jail. "Only years later was an enquiry established, presided over by a courageous judge who blew the whistle on such nefarious practices by our security forces."

Axworthy also referred to other cases: a Sudanese Canadian who was imprisoned in Khartoum, allegedly at the request of CSIS, and to three Canadians held in a Syrian jail who say they were tortured during interrogations. The "internal enquiry" was held under a former Supreme Court Justice, and the men accused, their counsel and the public have yet to see a single document, or the evidence gathered from government witnesses.

Just as secrecy undermines civil liberties, so does it also contribute to the militarization process, one which proceeds largely unnoticed by the public.

On Valentine's Day, 2008, Canada and the US signed an agreement which allows for the deployment of US troops inside Canada. There was no official announcement, nor was there a formal decision by government. The agreement was not between two governments but signed by military commanding officers. US Air Force General Gene Renuart and Canadian Air Force Lt.-General Marc Dumais signed a Civil Assistance Plan allowing the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency .

A BiNational Planning Group (BPG) was established in late 2002, one whose mandate is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons. It has two wings: a Combined Defense Plan and the Civil Assistance Plan. The BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarization of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both countries, such as in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence.

Another example of secret diplomacy is the Security & Prosperity Partnership. Four years after the launch of the SPP, proposing North American energy integration and bulk water exports, there has been no public consultation or parliamentary debate. The Council of Canadians is calling for such consultation and debate, and an end to talks aimed a promoting continental integration of Canada and the US .

4. The Military-Academic Complex in North America

Not long after President Eisenhower spoke of the "unwarranted influence" of the military-industrial complex, Senator William Fulbright warned against the militarization of academia. "In lending itself too much to the purposes of government," he said, "a university fails its highest purposes".

The military-academic complex, referred to by Senator Fulbright, is alive and well in North America today. In the US, he says, "the Pentagon has both the money and the muscle to alter the landscape of higher education, to manipulate research agendas, to change the course of curricula, and to force schools to play by the rules."

What kind of money and muscle? A 2002 Report by the Association of American Universities (AAU) said almost 350 colleges and universities carry out Pentagon-funded research with universities, receiving more than 60 percent of defense basic research funding. In 2005, the University of Hawaii received more than $34 million, New Mexico State $36 million, the University of Southern California $38 million and the University of Texas $52 million. They would be dwarfed, however, by Johns Hopkins University with $231 million and by the Mass. Institute of Technology (MIT) which received the astounding amount of more than $600 million in Department of Defense dollars.

Such funding power over universities dependent on federal government grants enables the Department of Defense to have its way with how the funds are spent and to play by its rules. Chalmers Johnson, author of The Sorrows of Empire, described how the Harvard Law School had managed to bar recruiters for the Judge Advocate General's Corps which barred students who were openly gay or lesbian . The Law School retreated, succumbing to a threat of losing its $300 million grant, resulting in a growing military presence on the campus.

One way the Pentagon extends its influence is through the National Security Agency (NSA) and its National Cryptologic School that "serves as a training resource for the entire Department of Defense". The NSA distributes CAE Awards that enable schools to compete for lucrative DoD Information Assurance Scholarship Program grant awards. By 2007, there were 86 such Centres in 34 states. Many other agencies associated with the Pentagon feed on the resources of the university. The Army Research Laboratory in Maryland, for instance, "delivers science and technology solutions to the warfighter," employing a variety of funding mechanisms to support and exploit programs at universities and industry." The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) also seeks university relationships in promoting its work towards the militarization of space.

Minerva: Soft Power from the Pentagon?

A remarkable story in The New York Times (June 18/08) describes how the Pentagon has begun "an unusual program to recruit social sciences and direct the nation's brainpower to combating security threats like the Chinese military, Iraq, terrorism and religious fundamentalism." Defense Secretary Robert Gates, initiator of Project Minerva - after the Roman goddess of wisdom (and warriors) - has stressed the importance of devoting resources to what he calls "soft power". (It was soft power which marked the foreign policy of former Minister Lloyd Axworthy in Canada, a policy scorned by the Canadian defence establishment). If Gates were to follow the advice of Hugh Gusterson, a founder of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, and other social scientists, he would channel the first $50 million from Minerva through the National Science Foundation or other institutions removed from the Department of Defense. In response to Mr. Gates' speech, the American Anthropological Association stated it is of "paramount importance" that anthropologists study the roots of terrorism and violence, but added: "We are deeply concerned that funding such research through the Pentagon may pose a potential conflict of interest and undermine the practices of peer review."

Canada's DND and Think Tanks

On a much smaller scale, Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) also seeks out ties with the brightest and best the universities of Canada can offer. One way has been to support the growth of "think tanks." In an article in the May 2008 issue of The Walrus Magazine, "How think tanks are muddling our democracy", George Fetherling quotes Donald Abelson at the University of Western Ontario who considers that think tanks today have a "profound determination to market their ideas to various target audiences." Fetherling comments: "listing heavily to political starboard (right wing)…their goals were those of the new conservatism. In Canada, that meant corporate and personal tax breaks, closer ties with the US, private health care… and more recently increased military spending .

Amir Attaran of the University of Toronto comments on how the Department of National Defence spends millions of dollars on think tanks and scholars "to offer up agreeable commentary". The Conference of Defence Associations (which received $500,000) "must 'support activities that give evidence of contributing to Canada's national policies' ."

The writer then lists the grants from DND's Security and Defence Forum received by scholars at Canadian universities: York, UQAM, Wilfrid Laurier, Laval, McGill, UBC, Manitoba, UNB, Carleton, Dalhousie and Calgary each received between $580,000 and $780,000, while Queen's obtained a grant of $1,480.000. Why? The writer claims that DND sponsors policy scholars who create the ideas, news and views that shape Canadians' perception of the military and the war. "When DND needs a kind word in Parliament or the media - presto! - an SDF-sponsored scholar often appears, without disclosing his or her financial link".

Ivory or Titanium Tower?

Canadian universities are less beholden to the lure of large defence grants than their US counterparts. Nevertheless, military, security-related research projects underway on Canadian campuses have the same dangerous implications as those south of the border. By stressing the military and hard power dimensions of security, within a DND long range perspective of preparing for future wars, research is less likely to help end the scourge of war and build a culture of peace. The ivory tower, then, would more likely assume the character of titanium, the element used by military forces to harden molten steel.

5. Militarism and the Environment

Physicians for Global Survival, in a research report entitled The Impact of Militarism on the Environment, concluded that military activities have extensive adverse impact on the environment . Today the world's militaries consume approximately 25% of all global jet fuel. The Pentagon is considered the single largest US consumer of oil. An F16 jet on a training mission lasting less than one hour uses twice as much fuel as the average motorist uses in a year.

"Nuclear weapons production and testing is considered to have the most severe and enduring impact on health and the environment of all military operations. The nuclear weapons production cycle involves uranium mining and processing, production of weapons-grade plutonium, assembly and transportation of nuclear weapons, weapons testing, storage disassembly with the required disposal of uranium, plutonium, tritium and chemical triggers".

What kinds of radioactive wastes are created in the manufacture of a single nuclear bomb containing 4 kg of plutonium-239 and 20 kg of uranium-235?

The figures are astounding: 2,000 metric tons of uranium mining waste, and 4 metric tons of depleted uranium as well as large amounts of strontium-90 and cesium-137, among others.

The estimated number of nuclear warheads built worldwide since 1945 is over 128,000. Many of them use separated plutonium, which has a half-life of 24,000 years. At the end of 2005 there were 15,000 metric tons of high-level waste from the nuclear weapons complex in the US and still no safe place to store it).

Most of the nuclear production facilities in the US are heavily polluted. Renner estimated that more than 50 Nagasaki-size bombs could be manufactured from the waste leaked just from the underground tanks at Hanford Reservation's Purex plant in Washington state. There are an estimated 257 tons of weapons-grade plutonium either stored or assembled in warheads as well as about 1,500 tons of highly-enriched uranium.

Things are as bad or worse in the former Soviet Union. From 1952, the Soviet military dumped huge amounts of nuclear waste from the Mayak Plant directly into Lake Karachay. Today it is known as the most polluted spot on the planet. Standing on its shore for an hour would kill a person within weeks.

In Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, the Urals and Siberia, millions of people live in areas contaminated from nuclear testing, where accidents or deliberate dumping of radioactive materials are frequent . Thousands of civilians have died; many more of them and their offspring linger on, poisoned and disfigured by what is known as "radiation sickness".

6. The Militarization of Space

Despite the UN Outer Space Treaty, which called nations to use space for peaceful purposes only, the US Space Command's 1996 Vision for 2020 report contains plans for offensive space weaponization. Its Vision statement of purpose is blunt: "Dominating the space dimension of military operations, to protect US national interests and investment. (And) integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict".

In April 2008, US Missile Defence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Henry Obering has called for the early deployment of space-based missile defense systems, a universal means of hitting either ground or space targets. The latest US contribution to the nightmare scenario of war in space is the development of the Falcon HCV, to develop a reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle, which is to fly at six to eight times the speed of sound and deliver 12,000 pounds of bombs anywhere in the world. Its "payload" would consist of several unpowered, maneuverable hypersonic glide vehicles, each carrying 1,000 pounds of munitions called the Common Aero Vehicle (CAV).

Russian Space Forces Commander Col. Gen. Vladimir Popovkin warned in May, 2008: "We are against any deployment or placement of weapons in outer space." Yet, given the tit-for-tat military policies of both countries, it is difficult to imagine Russia not seeking to keep in step with the US on this "final frontier".

Nuclear Space Dominoes in Asia

In January 2007, the Chinese tested an anti-satellite weapon system by blowing up a defunct orbiting weather satellite. The debris joined an estimated 18,000 objects larger than 10 cm and 580,000 fragments down to 1 cm, now orbiting the earth.

In June, 2008, The Times of India reported that China was developing anti-satellite lasers and other offensive space capabilities. It quoted defence minister A.K. Antony saying that what is needed is a full-fledged tri-service space command for effective tactical, operational and strategic exploitation of the final frontier. India had no option but to be fully prepared for future "star wars".

Pakistan has followed India's development of nuclear weapons, saying it doesn't want conflict with India but, if war came, it would "respond with full might".

Japan's defence forces are to be allowed to operate in space for the first time, as they try to counter military expansion in North Korea and China. A committee of the Japanese Parliament voted to revise the law which until now has prevented the use of space for military purposes. The proposed law specifies that any use must be non-aggressive, but Japan is concerned about China, which is already trying to counter the huge lead that the United States has in space warfare technology. Japan is also collaborating with the US in developing a missile defense shield, much to the consternation of China and Russia .

Canada's Radarsat II

The April/May 2008 issue of Peace Magazine asks whether Canada's Radarsat II is a satellite for peace or war. Or both. "The Canadian Space Agency emphasizes the peaceful uses of these eyes in the sky… These ingenious machines have the ability to serve many civil purposes, but they also have the ability to act as spies in the sky, and more ominously, to act as a very precise gun sight for missiles launched from air or land, or from space. Much of their use depends on who gets the data that they send back to earth.

Richard Sanders writes that for the past 12 years, in exchange for NASA's launch of Radarsat I, the US government has controlled 15% of the observation time. US government agencies also have free access to all RADARSAT data over six months old .

7. Prevalence of violence in our "culture of peace"

One reason why it is entrenched in our society is that militarism is also associated with the violence which finds its way into community events and popular sports with which so many of us associate. There are many examples in the North American culture:

IV. Conclusion

Canada is not among the most militarized states today. But it is allied to one which is. The Alliance, in turn, is part of a global network of security and defence institutions governed by military thinking. If this thinking prevails, then our children and grandchildren will be forced to live in a militarized world for the next 50 years. Canada's plans and immediate purchases are for weapons systems to last at least 25 of those years. And, as a member of NATO, Canada supports the long range planning for new nuclear weapons into the 2050s. More wars of indeterminate size and ferocity are now assumed, and new weapons budgeted for. The Walrus Foundation just held a fund raising luncheon and panel discussion in Ottawa with the theme: War in the 21st Century: does Canada have what it Needs?

What Canada needs is not to assume new wars, but new policies on how to prevent them, to take seriously the warnings that, environmentally, our world may not make it into the mid-Fifties. And, given the increasing danger of nuclear war, premeditated or by accident, the odds for survival that long grow shorter with each passing year - unless ...

- unless sufficient numbers of us, here and abroad, connect and are able to say with one voice, and be heard by the decision-makers: "Enough! Stop living the worst case syndrome and repeating the enemy-obsessive mantras that ricochet off the walls of Parliament, and which sully too many editorials and public discussions. If we choose to survive, and if we really want to live in peace, then let us prepare for peace!"

Windmills or Warheads?

Environmentalists tell us we have a 10-to-15-year Window for Action to get climate change under control. That is, by 2020-2025. This means slowing, then stopping the heating of the atmosphere, the melting of the Arctic, the rising temperatures of the seas and the huge loss of plant and animal species.

The armed forces of the world are the single biggest polluters, adding to, not subtracting from, greenhouse gases. Defence budgets receive at least 1.4 trillion dollars a year when less than half of that, it's estimated, could turn the climate change around.

Yet the Canadian government has now announced a $490 billion addition to our defence budget for the next 20 years, up to 2025! So what will it be: windmills, symbolizing a culture of peace, or warheads, an enveloping culture of war? The choice is ours.

V. What do we do about it?

There is, of course, no one thing we can do which will bring about an end to the militarization of Canada and the world. But there are many things we can do - and some are now doing them - which can slow this destructive process and finally end it. Here are eight of them, from many possible initiatives:

  1. Maintain what is already being done by NGOs in opposing land mines, cluster bombs, small arms and nuclear weapons, while helping to strengthen international law and the major treaties which underpin it.
  2. Continue to challenge NATO's nuclear weapon policies, as well as those of the other Nuclear Weapon States. Seek an end to uranium mining and production in Canada. Join a uranium network, such as CFSC-Uranium. Show how grievously the environment has been damaged by the production of nuclear weapons and the failure to safely store nuclear wastes.
  3. Publicize, then seek an end to the ongoing production and sale of military commodities in Canada . Ask why no specific data can be obtained for the sale of weapons and their components to the US. Tell people about the arms bazaars frequently held in Canada, including the latest one in Ottawa called CANSEC 2008.
  4. Try to find out what the think tanks and university scholars funded by DND are researching and writing about in using these funds. Ask questions of the directors or administrators of university research institutes.
  5. Challenge the Canadian government's lack of transparency in reporting the sale of military exports, in security and defence issues with the US, the integration of military commands and the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
  6. Establish a method for publicly monitoring examples of the militarization of Canada. Seek support from other NGOs who share this concern. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists uses a Doomsday Clock. The Fraser Institute employs Tax Freedom Day. The IDRC used to show second-by-second increases in global population and decreases in available arable land.
  7. Seek with other NGOs a Ministry of Peace which defines a defence policy that is nonviolent in its objectives, methods and operations. If comfortable with such a policy, withhold the percentage of one's income tax which is estimated for war-making. Inform the government and Conscience Canada and contribute that amount to the Peace Tax Trust Fund.
  8. Study and become familiar with the many dimensions of militarism, its role in history and in our present world. Examine the relationships between cultures of war and militarism on the one hand, and peace and pacifism on the other. Such studies could lead to new insights & actions on government policies related to cultural attitudes and values that are common to us all.

On the 100th anniversary of the Nobel Prize, 110 Nobel laureates produced a full page Ad, endorsed by 158 Companions and Officers of the Order of Canada, which read, in part:

It is time to turn our backs on the unilateral search for security, in which we seek to shelter behind walls. Instead, we must persist in the quest for united action to counter both global warming and a weaponized world… To survive in the world we have transformed, we must learn to think in a new way. As never before, the future of each depends on the good of all ."

  1. Nick Turse, "How the Military Invades our Everyday Lives", Metropolitan Books, NYC. 2008
  2. Russia orders more road-mobile TOPOL ICBMs:
  3. "Chinese nuclear forces 2008", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July-August 2008, Chicago.
  4. "Militarism 1969: A Survey of World Trends", Murray Thomson, Canadian Peace Research Review Vol. 2, 1970
  5. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; also Focus Magazine, 22 Oct/2007
  6. Ottawa Business Journal, Ottawa, April 7, 2008
  7. "Toward a Culture of Peace: Can we Afford to Pay the Price?" Murray Thomson, 2006 Sunderland Gardner Lecture, Argenta Friends Press, Argenta, B.C.
  8. "Canadian Pugwash Calls for NATO to Denuclearize", June 2007, c/o 6 Tepee Court, Toronto M2J 3A9
  9. "Canadian American Strategic Review" (CASR):
  10. "Canadians Reject SPP Priorities, says poll", Council of Canadians News Release, April 15/08.
  11. "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic", Chalmers Johnston, Metropolitan Books. NYC, 2004
  12. "Pentagon to consult academics on security", Patricia Cohen at
  13. "In the Tank: How Think Tanks are Muddling our Democracy", George Fetherling, The Walrus, May 2008
  14. "DND's funding…through the Security & Defence Forum Program", Op-Ed, Globe & Mail, 21 February 2008.
  15. "The Impact of Militarism on the Environment: An overview of direct & indirect effects" Ameer Majeed, A research report written for Physicians for Global Survival, Ottawa 2004
  16. "Mountain of Waste"Allison Macfarlane. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Chicago, May/June 2006.
  17. Certificate 000358: Nuclear Devastation in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, the Urals and Siberia, Antoinette de Jong and Robert Knoth, Greenpeace & UNICEF, Amsterdam, 2006
  18. "Space command must to stop China", The Times of India, June 17/08
  19. "Japan allows military activity in space", Richard Spencer in Beijing, May 19, 2008
  20. "Canada's Radarsat II: less innocent than it looks?" Peace Magazine, Toronto, April- June/08
  21. "Goalie who wouldn't fight…", Allan Maki. Globe & Mail, Toronto, April 7, 2008
  22. "Canada's Latest Report on Military Exports", Ken Epps, Ploughshares Monitor, Waterloo, Ontario, Spring 2008
  23. "Our best point the way: 110 Nobel laureates urge all governments to take concrete steps to replace war by law", Globe & Mail, 11 Dec, 2001.

Thomson O.C., was an air force pilot before working on adult education in Saskatchewan, on disarmament with Project Ploughshares and on sustainable development with CUSO. He is a member of the Quaker community in Ottawa.

order a copy of this issue (166)

$7.50 CAD, to a Canadian address
$7.50 USD, to an address in the USA
$11.50 USD, to an address outside Canada/USA
To receive a free sample copy of a previous issue, send your address to: