In today’s evolving geopolitical landscape, nuclear arms control is under significant strain. Former Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy offers insightful commentary on this vital issue, analyzing the failures of international diplomacy and the pressing need for renewed discourse around arms control. His experience and perspective shed light on the complicated realities we face, urging us to reconsider the path ahead.
Conor here: While Axworthy places much of the blame on authoritarian regimes, it’s evident that meaningful progress is unlikely unless the United States can restore some level of rationality—if that is even feasible. The bipartisan inclination in Washington, often referred to as The Blob, to dismantle certain nuclear powers complicates matters further. Additionally, military interventions in non-nuclear states can unintentionally fuel the quest for nuclear capabilities. Regardless of whether Axworthy’s assessment of the current situation is entirely accurate, his cautions are certainly worth heeding.
Lloyd Axworthy is a seasoned Canadian statesman, educator, and former Liberal cabinet minister who served as Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1995 to 2000 under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Over his 27-year political career—spanning six years in the Manitoba legislature and 21 years in federal Parliament—he gained international recognition for promoting the concept of “human security,” notably through his leadership in establishing the Ottawa Treaty, which bans anti-personnel landmines. This article was also published on theanalysis.news.
Barry Stevens
Welcome to theAnalysis. I’m Barry Stevens. Shortly, I will be joined by Lloyd Axworthy, Canada’s former Foreign Minister, and Doug Saunders from the Globe and Mail. In this two-part discussion, we’ll first delve into the collapse of nuclear arms control and the implications of nuclear proliferation. In the second part, we will address the United States’ stance against the International Criminal Court.
Be sure to visit theAnalysis.news, where you’ll find a donation button if you’re inclined to support our work. You can also listen to us on YouTube and various audio platforms like Spotify and Apple. We’ll be back in a moment.
I’m Barry Stevens, a writer and filmmaker specializing in documentaries. Joining me is Doug Saunders, an award-winning journalist who has reported from numerous countries. He is, in my view, one of the most insightful columnists at the Globe and Mail, known for his original takes on 21st-century cities and human migration.
We’re here to engage with Lloyd Axworthy, whose rich political career spans nearly fifty years. As Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, he spearheaded the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, held pivotal roles at the UN Security Council, and was a key advocate for the idea of human security, which resonates deeply today. In addition to his public service, he has served as a university president and chaired the World Refugee and Migration Council. His recent memoir has garnered attention, and he also served as the international co-president of the World Federalist Movement.
Lloyd Axworthy
I did, yes.
Barry Stevens
He has been a vocal critic of Canada’s foreign policy and the efficacy of international institutions. Today, I aim to discuss nuclear weapons and the ICC, if time allows.
Lloyd Axworthy
Sure.
Barry Stevens
To set the stage regarding nuclear issues, the last nuclear arms control treaty between Russia and the U.S. expired earlier this year. The U.S. is investing heavily in modernizing its arsenal, while Russia is developing new weapons to circumvent systems like the so-called Golden Dome, which, as President Trump suggested, are meant to shield America. Such developments will likely involve Canada’s participation. There have been nuclear threats exchanged by President Putin and the U.S. president concerning Iran, and recently, Washington has pursued a civil nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that seemingly includes uranium enrichment rights. Considering all this, Lloyd, do you believe we find ourselves in a dangerously unstable period?
Lloyd Axworthy
Absolutely. It feels perilous because decades of effort to establish guardrails, limitations, and protective measures have all but disintegrated. Canada historically made a significant decision after World War II; though it had the capability to become a nuclear weapons state, it chose not to. The Saint-Laurent government reached a unanimous decision in the House of Commons to commit to being a non-nuclear nation. This choice has shaped our legacy ever since.
However, for reasons that are now unclear, Canada’s Global Affairs department—the former powerhouse in diplomatic nuclear development—has essentially been sidelined. Discussions are stagnant, and we have opted out of treaties aimed at banning nuclear weapons. I worry that our agreements with Saudi Arabia might unwittingly include uranium and related technologies. The current government is not transparent about such matters.
We have reached a juncture where the proliferation of nuclear sites is coupled with the advent of new delivery mechanisms and weapon systems. The rhetoric from the U.S., Russia, and China has shifted, suggesting that nuclear weapons are no longer the sober reality we once faced. Instead, they imply that we can pursue calculated applications, which is fundamentally misleading. The very foundation of international conflict management is crumbling.
Doug Saunders
There’s a—
Barry Stevens
Please, go ahead, Doug.
Doug Saunders
This moment feels historically peculiar, especially as the architecture of nonproliferation wanes. On one hand, nations are returning to the language of nuclear deterrence. On the other hand, recent global events have shown states considering nuclear weapons that deterrence often proves ineffective, particularly against neighboring countries. For instance, Ukraine, a non-nuclear nation, has managed to occupy a region of Russia for over a year, fully aware that Russia is unlikely to retaliate with nuclear force, as doing so would essentially endanger its own populace.
We have also witnessed India and Pakistan engage in conventional warfare, despite possessing nuclear arsenals.
Lloyd Axworthy
Right.
Doug Saunders
In that context, India significantly damaged Pakistan’s air force, secure in the understanding that nuclear deterrence holds little power against neighboring states. While one could argue about its efficacy elsewhere, recent trends should reinforce the notion that the costs and risks associated with developing nuclear arsenals may not be justifiable. However, this conversation remains tragically absent, as the institutions meant to articulate it have been weakened.
Lloyd Axworthy
Exactly. This has become a sort of a theatrical performance—going through the motions, using the appropriate language, and convening meetings, yet achieving nothing. Meanwhile, North Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia are all inching closer to nuclear capabilities. The diminishing American influence, especially under Trump, has led many to distrust U.S. capabilities, prompting countries to consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions.
Take Europe, for instance—serious conversations have emerged around whether European states should develop their own nuclear arsenals. I recall an international law professor from graduate school, Richard Falk, who aptly remarked that “if you keep producing weapons, to one day you will use them.”
Barry Stevens
Indeed, despite the limitations of deterrence, it’s still possible for countries to engage in warfare while retaining nuclear capabilities without deploying them. However, the reality is that the United States maintains a vast arsenal of land-based missiles that are ready to be deployed. If there’s ever a hint that these weapons are targeted, the U.S. president has a mere five to ten minutes to make a decision on their use—intensifying the urgency in an already precarious situation, especially with the incorporation of artificial intelligence into these processes.
Lloyd Axworthy
That’s a crucial point. Barry, we witness these developments daily, with the current U.S. president displaying erratic behavior. At what point does his frustration and anger lead him to react dramatically? The systems we have in place are on a razor’s edge, with no clear rules that he feels compelled to follow.
Barry Stevens
A former State Department fellow, Tom Countryman, emphasized the dwindling “ecology” surrounding nuclear diplomacy—networks built on familiarity and communication appear to be deteriorating. Would you assert that you had more collegial relationships with Soviets during your tenure than are found today?
Lloyd Axworthy
Yes, quite so. A historical tidbit: the Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and I were strong advocates against nuclear proliferation. We formed a bond, especially since he was dismissed shortly after Putin assumed power. There are many Russians who remember that collaboration.
I’m currently reflecting on my experiences and likely represent one of the last generations to have lived through World War II. We’re losing this historical context, and with it, the understanding of the nuclear threat. The horrors of Hiroshima still resonate, fundamentally altering the psyche of several generations, yet the current generation seems disconnected from this narrative.
Barry Stevens
It’s true that leaders from the era of George H.W. Bush experienced war firsthand. Putin’s personal history, having lost a brother during the war, adds a layer of complexity to his actions. Yet, many leaders today lack that lived experience. While the international discourse may seem dire, there exists the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Doug Saunders
Yes.
Barry Stevens
I learned that over 100 countries, more than half of the global nations, have signed this treaty. Canada, however, remains hesitant. Is there a potential role for middle powers to exert influence here? Should they prioritize this treaty?
Lloyd Axworthy
I believe any initiative aimed at imposing constraints on warfare and weapon usage should be welcomed. Constructing frameworks like this treaty, albeit without the involvement of great powers, can still foster significant change. For instance, we successfully implemented the landmine treaty despite American and Russian reluctance.
Establishing norms—though it may sound idealistic—plays a crucial role in shaping global power dynamics. The more we can articulate positive norms, amplify them, and share information, the better our chances of fortifying a bulwark against militaristic ambitions from those who are increasingly reckless and those in positions of power who disregard limitations, particularly in technology-centric areas like Silicon Valley.
Doug Saunders
That could very well be our best chance—the revival of non-proliferation as a politically appealing agenda. It’s crucial for voters to favor leaders who prioritize non-proliferation, especially as some political factions are touting proliferation as a valuable platform.
Lloyd Axworthy
Exactly.
Doug Saunders
That underscores the pressing need for robust discourse on this topic.
Lloyd Axworthy
Doug, you’re well-versed in international affairs. Would you attribute this current climate to the rise of increasingly right-wing governments aiming to dismantle liberal international systems, or is there a deeper cause?
Doug Saunders
This aligns with a larger conversation we’re having globally about the surge of authoritarianism. The pressing question is whether this tide emerges from a collective loss of rational thought or from strongman leaders manipulating systems for their gain. One silver lining is that these authoritarian viewpoints, including those advocating for nuclear proliferation, rarely enjoy majority support.
In countries like Hungary and Brazil, where such ideologies have gained traction, citizens have often mobilized to restore democratic values. Donald Trump, for instance, never attained majority support. Reactions only strengthen as discussions about arming with nuclear capabilities surface, prompting the public to recoil and reaffirm their beliefs in moral governance. It’s crucial to recognize this line as one we dare not cross, distinguishing principled leaders from those who would lead us astray.
Barry Stevens
Is it not true that nuclear aspirations can become almost apolitical? For instance, the British Labor governments in the ’40s vigorously pursued nuclear capabilities. Currently, France is keen on extending its nuclear umbrella across Europe. In South Korea, over two-thirds of the population supports their own nuclear arsenal, likely due to fears that American protection may wane. The belief that nuclear capability offers security persists, even if it’s fundamentally flawed.
Lloyd Axworthy
You’ve highlighted a crucial point. Society has increasingly lost its fear of nuclear weapons and the potential devastation they bring. The narrative has shifted toward considering them as strategic, targeted assets. I observe a generational gap, especially concerning younger people unaware of events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A friend of mine who teaches civics told me that when he mentions these events, students often wonder if he’s referring to some new Japanese candy. This information vacuum is troubling, especially when nations like Canada step back from discussions that once defined our diplomatic engagement.
Doug Saunders
In Europe and some Canadian circles, prevailing misconceptions about NATO also contribute to this situation. Misunderstandings surrounding NATO’s collective defense function lead to calls for more independent nuclear arsenals—something that undermines the core purpose of the alliance. If several NATO countries already possess nuclear capabilities, why do others see a need to pursue them independently? Proposals for nations like Germany to develop nuclear arms seem implausible when the fundamental concept of collective defense is misunderstood.
Barry Stevens
It’s ironic that the Manhattan Project began with many Jewish scientists fearing the potential of German nuclear capabilities.
Lloyd Axworthy
The Germans.
Barry Stevens
Indeed, it’s striking that they would now lean toward nuclear ambitions.
This concludes the first installment of our dialogue with Lloyd Axworthy and Doug Saunders. Please stay tuned for the second part, where we will explore the U.S. approach toward the International Criminal Court. You can find us on theAnalysis.news and YouTube, among various platforms. If you enjoyed this discussion, don’t forget to like and subscribe. We hope to see you next time.
