CANSEC arms trade show 2010

[Oscar]

CANSEC arms trade show 2010

CANSEC's Free Publicity in News across Canada, May 12, 2010.

An article about the CANSEC weapons trade show called "DND lets staff take trade-show freebies" was published on the front page of The Ottawa Citizen, May 12. It was also published in numerous daily newspapers across Canada under the title "Changes to DND hospitality rules at military trade show raising eyebrows." It reads like a free promotion for Canada's largest weapons trade show.

Read it here:
[ http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/food/ ... id=3015833 ]

The article served out a very "faint critique" of Canada's top war-industry exhibition. The worst thing the article manages to say about CANSEC is that some people find it questionable that DND is bending the rules to allow armed forces personnel to receive free meals while attending this arms bazaar.

Please send a letter to the papers listed below.

Tell them some of the real reasons why people like you oppose CANSEC.
Click the email addresses to send your letters to the editor. You can send your email to each one of them.

Ottawa Citizen mailto:letters@thecitizen.canwest.com
Calgary Herald mailto:letters@theherald.canwest.com
Leader-Post (Regina) mailto:letters@leaderpost.canwest.com
The Province (Vancouver) mailto:provletters@theprovince.com
Times Colonist (Victoria) mailto:letters@tc.canwest.com
Vancouver Sun mailto:sunletters@vancouversun.com

Sample letter

[ http://coat.ncf.ca/CANSEC2010/sampleletter.htm ]

Click the link above for a short sample letter, written by Richard Sanders (coordinator, COAT) which was sent to the above newspapers, May 13, 2010.

Read "Some tips on writing a letter" at the end of this email

A Review of the Article

Nothing was said in this article about how the CANSEC arms trade show helps fuel wars and repression around the world. Neither was anything said about the fact that war industries exhibiting at CANSEC have received literally billions of dollars in handouts from the federal government to help them develop and export their military technologies.

David Pugliese's article notes that DND "suspended some of the rules governing the acceptance of hospitality from the private sector." He then quotes "defence analyst" Steve Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, saying "he was surprised the defence leadership was overriding its own rules."

First of all, there isn't anything surprising about this little controversy. As reported in COAT's magazine last year, DND issued a similar memo in March 2009 allowing military personnel to accept free meals at CANSEC 2009.

(See the section, "Free lunch anyone?" in CANSEC: War is Business," Nov. 2009, p.13.)
[ http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/64/64.htm ]

Secondly, peace activists should find it disturbing that the article uses the euphemism "defence" a dozen times, instead of the neutral, un-spun term "military." Meanwhile, "war" only appears once in the article, buried inside the name Paul Dewar!

Of course the words "peace," "protest" and "human rights" are never mentioned. Neither is there any indication that readers should consider a more substantial or meaningful critique of this military trade show, other than merely "raising eyebrows" over whether free food should be they should be doled out to the troops in attendance.

In short, the article completely missed the point about why CANSEC is controversial.

The article makes no mention of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade, or the 20-year City of Ottawa ban that COAT inspired back in 1989 which stopped all arms shows from being held at Lansdowne Park until 2009. It didn't mention that there was a real controversy last year over whether Council should welcome the CANSEC arms show back onto municipal property. Although the article is ostensibly focused on an possible reason for objecting to CANSEC, there is no mention that COAT is planning a "Rally for Peace" to protest the CANSEC arms trade show this year, on June 2, between 5 and 7 pm. This would be considered inappropriate.

The newspaper would not want to be giving free advertising to such public, peace events. The paper does however consider it appropriate to promote the privately-run, no-public-allowed, CANSEC arms trade show. Last year, widespread grassroots opposition to CANSEC was reflected in the fact that thousands signed petitions to oppose the arms show and about 50 organisations sent delegations to present briefs to a City Council committee. The Anglican Bishop of Ottawa wrote a letter to City Council opposing CANSEC, as did the Ottawa Presbytery of the United Church of Canada which represents 80 congregations with 20,000 members. None of these facts were mentioned in The Citizen last year. And, when about four hundred people attended a peace event with music and speakers from many groups representing public opposition to CANSEC 2009, it too was completely and utterly ignored by The Citizen.

The Citizen article about CANSEC concludes with a very nice quotation from the show's main organiser, Tim Page, President of the so-called "Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries." His fine words reinforce the whole idea -- repeated throughout the article -- that CANSEC is all about "defence." Because Page is given the final word in the article, his self-serving comments become, essentially, the author's own conclusion:

"Historically, DND has been the most important customer group at CANSEC.... We believe there is value for DND and CF personnel to see and learn, first hand, about the industrial capabilities that are available to them so that they may do their jobs safely and effectively."

What good patriotic Canadian could disagree with that?

CADSI, the organisation behind the CANSEC arms show, clearly wasn't bothered by The Citizen article. In fact, they proudly posted a link to it on their website. The article effectively gave them free, advance, front-page publicity for their event. This, as we have seen, is something that The Citizen has been loath to do for anti-CANSEC, peace events. But in this article, The Citizen not only announced that Canadian armed forces personnel and DND staffers are invited to attend the CANSEC "defence" show on June 2-3, the article also made it abundantly clear that those attending might also reasonably expect to get a free meal deal!

Imagine if peace activists organising a protest against Canada's war industry got similar treatment in the media? Imagine if the media ran front page articles "raising eyebrows" because the public was going to get "free meals" when they attended a peace rally? Nice! Would we put up with this "faint critique' in order to get all that free publicity? The only trouble is that the peace movement can't afford to hand out free meals to folks who join us at antiwar protests, and we aren't likely to get big corporations or the government to cover the bill for dishing out food at our events.

Very tellingly, a link to The Citizen article about CANSEC appears on a webpage called "Building a buzz at a trade show with a limited budget."

[ http://showstopper.wordpress.com/2006/0 ... ed-budget/ ]

The heading on this webpage is "Trade Show Tips: Advice and Tips on How to Survive Your Next Trade Show." That about says it all. Whether The Citizen author intended his piece on CANSEC to serve as free publicity for the military trade show is unknown. The fact is, that's exactly how it (and he) was used.

Some tips on writing a letter:

(1) Keep it short and to the point: 100-150 words

(2) Include your full name, address and daytime phone number.

(3) Put the title of the article you are commenting on and its date just above your letter to the editor.
So, in this case put the following line above "Dear editor"
Re: "Changes to DND hospitality rules at military trade show raising eyebrows," May 11, 2010.

(4) CC your letter to the author of The Citizen article, David Pugliese:
dpugliese@shaw.ca

(5) BCC your letter to Richard Sanders, at COAT:
overcoat@rogers.com

Here are some Quicklinks to info about CANSEC and COAT's opposition to it:
http://coat.ncf.ca/CANSEC2010/Quicklinks.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANSEC – warfare exhibit in Ottawa: Ottawa defies international law
[ http://www.pej.org/html/modules.phpop=m ... =0&thold=0 ]

- Joan Russow (PhD) May 15, 2010

Global Compliance Research Project

Yet again Ottawa is defying international law in hosting CANSEC.

Reallocation of military expenses

In 1976 at Habitat 1, a UN conference in Vancouver member states of the United Nations affirmed the following in relation to the military budgets and armaments:

"The waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be prevented. All countries should make a firm commitment to promote general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, in particular in the field of nuclear disarmament. Part of the resources thus released should be utilized so as to achieve a better quality of life for humanity and particularly for the peoples of developing countries" (II, 12 Habitat 1).

This commitment was continually reinforced over the years through various resolutions at the UN General Assembly and in 1992, at the UN Conference on the Environment Development All members states of the UN made a commitment to reallocate military expenses.

There have been 33 years of procrastination and now the current global military budget is over 1.7 Trillion, and AN increasing, amount is being spent on armaments.

If we want to reduce the production of armaments we must call for substantial reduction of the military budgets

War machine arsenals exhibitions are continuing to occur with impunity and increasing perfidy

While governments over the years through various Geneva Protocols and other conventions have incurred obligations related to armaments, corporations through sympathetic governments have continued to produce weapons systems that violate government obligations.

For example
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

In 1977, established basic rules related to armaments:

Art 35. Basic rules

1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

AND
3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare, which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

These provisions, if enforced, would end the production of armaments and close down this exhibition:

Also in the additional Geneva protocol there are imposed limitations on the development of new weapons. Under Article 36, which reads.

Art 36. New weapons

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapons, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting . ie governments. are under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

In 1980, member states of the United Nations negotiated the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects

Again the enforcement of this provision would justify the closing down of this exhibition

CANSEC will be yet again profiling an arsenal that will be excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects; and through the actions of these military dealers, governments are controvening the above convention

Also rather than preventing the production and use of cluster bombs, countries that have aggressively intervened in other countries have used them BUT

After numerous studies related to the impact of cluster bombs, in 2008 a legally binding international instrument that prohibits the use and stockpiling of cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians and requires clearance of contaminated areas». Was adopted.

How many of latest armaments in this exhibition will be prohibited in the future; once their dire consequences materialize

Governments must invoke the precautionary principle and embark upon prohibiting the production of all these armaments

They do not have to wait there is scientific certainty that dire consequences of the weapon systems materialize to prohibit the production, exhibition and use of these armaments such as trident fury on the West Coast – to war games including NATO war games.

These expressions of militarism could and must be declared to be “propaganda for war”

Under the International human rights instrument – the International Covenant, of Civil and Political Rights negotiated in 1966, has been signed and ratified by most countries including Canada and the US.

All governments incurred an obligation reflected in this statement “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law (Art. 20, International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966)

Governments must discharge their obligation under the covenant to prohibit the propaganda for war, thus to prohibit all war games, all nuclear ship visits and all production and exhibition of armaments.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: "Changes to DND hospitality rules at military trade show raising eyebrows," May 11, 2010.

[ http://coat.ncf.ca/CANSEC2010/sampleletter.htm ]

Dear editor,

Peace and human rights activists are doing more than just "raising eyebrows" about Canada's largest war-industry trade show. We are working hard to expose and oppose it. However, our opposition to CANSEC goes far beyond quibbling over the "free lunches" dished out there. These handouts are trivial compared to the literally billions of dollars in federal government largesse donated to Canadian military exporters. The real problem is that CANSEC facilitates the arms trade and helps fuel wars raging around the world. Many CANSEC exhibitors profit from the sale of high-tech components assembled into the world's deadliest weapons systems. These weapons have killed scores of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. This is why we will again be gathering outside Ottawa's fair grounds to protest Canada's most blatant symbol of war profiteering.

Richard Sanders
Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)
Author, "CANSEC: War is Business"
[ http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/64/64-all.pdf ]

P.S. I would be happy to write an article or op ed piece on CANSEC. I have done many months of in depth research (see the link above) documenting hundreds of specific products that CANSEC exhibitors have exported for assembly into dozens of major US weapons systems used in Iraq and elsewhere.

P.P.S. The 2010 "free lunch" deal is not exactly new. A DND memo of March 13, 2009, from Chief of Defence Staff, Walt Natynczyk, gave armed forces personnel a blanket exemption from military conflict-of-interest rules outlined in "Acceptance of Gifts, Hospitality and other Benefits." I reported on this last year on page 13 of the document cited above.

Here is my contact information:

Richard Sanders
541 McLeod St.
Ottawa ON K1R 5R2
overcoat@rogers.com
613-231-3076

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian arms (and principles) sold

[ http://www.ceasefire.ca/?p=10409&utm_so ... fire.ca%29 ]

[ NOTE: Numerous Links in this article are on original URL. ]

Posted: 24 Feb 2012 06:34 AM PST

Figures tabled in parliament confirm that Canadian arms sales to Saudi Arabia skyrocketed last year, with more than $4 billion in sales approved to the Middle East monarchy.

Figures tabled in parliament confirm that Canadian arms sales to Saudi Arabia skyrocketed last year, with more than $4 billion in sales approved to the Middle East monarchy (Lee Berthiaume, “Canadian arms exports used by Saudi Arabia to quash Bahrain protest,” Calgary Herald, 23 February 2012).

The Canadian government figures do not specify what items were approved for sale to Saudi Arabia, but there is no doubt that the primary items being sold are Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) built by General Dynamics Land Systems in London, Ontario.

As Ceasefire.ca pointed out last year, Saudi Arabia has been using previously delivered Canadian-made LAVs to help suppress the democracy movement in neighbouring Bahrain.

We warned then that the company planned to sell another 724 LAVs to Saudi Arabia (later augmented by a further 82 LAVs), and we called on the Canadian government to “prevent further shipments to Saudi Arabia of military vehicles made in Canada, and to institute an embargo on the export of all military goods to the region during the current political turmoil.”

Unfortunately, Prime Minister Harper’s self-congratulatory rhetoric about his foreign policy principles only goes so far.

Canada may stand proudly in support of the people of the Middle East in their struggle to throw off the dictators and torturers that oppress them (and also sometimes send us exceptionally useful information).

But don’t expect us to let our principled support for the “Arab Spring” jeopardize $4 billion in arms sales.