Reports indicate that some nuclear-armed states, particularly the U.S. and the United Kingdom, have been pressuring Canada and other allied states to not attend the negotiations, regardless of their decades-old obligation to disarm under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Other states with nuclear weapons, including Pakistan and India, are still considering participating.

In a leaked memo to other NATO countries, the U.S. wrote last year that “if negotiations do start, we ask allies and partners to refrain from joining them.” It seems these nuclear-armed states are concerned that a ban treaty would create new norms against nuclear weapons and increase pressure to meet their disarmament obligations. Increased pressure to disarm would be especially challenging to the U.S. and the UK, because they both have plans to modernize their nuclear arsenals. These actions run contrary to the NPT, which Canada has been party to since 1970, and which calls on all states “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating…to nuclear disarmament.”

They also run contrary to NATO’s commitment to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. While NATO may currently be a nuclear alliance (remember, it was not founded as one, and some states have opted out of nuclear sharing), its 2010 Strategic Doctrine commits member states “to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.” Under then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Canada pushed for a review of the importance of nuclear weapons in NATO’s Strategic Concept; unfortunately, the review recommended maintaining the status quo with regards to nuclear weapons. Now, despite our previous work towards disarmament and our legal obligations under the NPT, Canada looks set to be on the outside looking in when it comes to the nuclear disarmament debate.

It is difficult to find a reason for such a dramatic change in direction from Canada. Canadian values of humanitarianism, peace and security have not changed. Nuclear deterrence and nuclear weapons cannot protect our country from current threats like terrorism, cyber attacks and climate change. The international community has learned more about the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and the risks of a future nuclear detonation, furthering the case for disarmament.

One possible explanation for Canada’s change in direction could be a lack of political courage to challenge the status quo. This lack of political courage could also explain the government’s reticence to announce its intentions with regards to attending the negotiations. When asked in parliament about attending the negotiations, the government refers to work being done on the Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and does not address the upcoming negotiations.

In a recent statement to The Globe, a Global Affairs Canada spokesperson said: “The negotiation of a nuclear-weapon ban without the participation of states that possess nuclear weapons is certain to be ineffective and will not eliminate any nuclear weapons.” This statement is rather problematic. First, it presumes to know how effective a legal instrument will be before it is negotiated or implemented. Without knowing what the treaty will say, how is GAC certain it will be ineffective? The assertion that the treaty will not eliminate any nuclear weapons is a talking point we have heard from Canada before, and there is a simple response: Well, of course not — treaties are not magic.

But a ban treaty would be another step in a gradual process leading to complete nuclear disarmament, and complementary to the FMCT, the NPT and other actions Canada promotes. It would also increase the pressure on the nuclear weapon states to effectively carry out steps towards disarmament. We have seen from other disarmament issues that prohibition comes before elimination.

A treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons would finally state clearly that nuclear weapons are illegitimate and incompatible with international humanitarian law.

If Canada does not attend these negotiations, we will be left out of the conversation. Considering one of the topics for discussion would be interoperability with states outside the treaty and with states who continue to possess nuclear weapons, boycotting the talks means not having a say in a decision-making process that could impact our alliances around the world.

Our close ally and NATO member, the Netherlands, “has chosen to take part constructively, with an open mind and without being naïve,” as Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders said in February. This position is one Canada could adopt easily; attending the negotiations does not automatically require signing the resulting treaty but merely listening with an open mind, asking questions and weighing in on issues that affect Canada.

More worryingly than being left out of the decision-making process, boycotting the negotiations will raise questions from states participating in the negotiations and civil society beyond whether not Canada is committed to the NPT and disarmament. With these negotiations, the vast majority of the world is saying that nuclear weapons threaten international security and that a prohibition on nuclear weapons will help, so why is Canada ignoring these concerns? Much of the discourse from states under the U.S.’s nuclear umbrella has seemed to imply that the security concerns of these few states were more important than the security concerns of the over 120 countries who see nuclear weapons as a serious threat. Will these states support Canada’s UN Security Council bid, if we disregard their concerns about weapons that threaten the security of us all?

Above all there will be questions about Canada’s views on the legitimacy of nuclear weapons. If Canada does not support a prohibition on nuclear weapons, then the logical conclusion is that Canada feels that nuclear weapons are legitimate weapons.

According to NATO’s website, “deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities, remains a core element” of the alliance’s overall strategy. But it is rarely explained that this means we as Canadians accept that one possible response to an attack on Canada or one of our allies is the use of nuclear weapons, despite their indiscriminate and widespread humanitarian consequences. As a country under the U.S.’ nuclear umbrella, we have agreed to the use of one or more weapons of mass destruction on cities to defend Canada. What would justify the complete destruction of a city, irradiation of the environment and deaths of thousands or millions of civilians in our name?