Map Projections and Nuclear Energy Strategy

Readers of past John’s Musings will know that I often refer to old printed maps of exploration and discovery to illustrate how we might understand civil nuclear energy, how it’s used, where it’s going, and what it means for Canada. Hopefully such allusions are at least entertaining if not entirely instructive.

Maps have made it into the news big-time recently. First, we saw the US Administration decide on the president’s whimsy to re-name Lake Ontario as “Lake America”. Now it’s not like Lake Ontario was simply dreamed up in a Rand McNally public school atlas. Shown above is a map in my collection – Le Canada – produced in 1656 by the French cartographer Nicolas Sanson, a mere 120 years before the American colonies declared their independence. Lac Ontario is clearly shown, and we find it even earlier on hand-drawn maps of the Jesuit missionaries who lived in and around the Lake Ontario region in the 1630s and 1640s.

Meanwhile, a vote in the United Nations passed overwhelmingly to change the famous and longtime Mercator Projection in favour of the “Equal Earth” projection, which re-proportions the size of the African Continent relative to other regions, especially territories stretching from 60° to the polar regions. Maps with the traditional Mercator projection show increasing elongation northwards while compressing the area around the Equator. “Equal Earth” by contrast shrinks Canada’s North and grows Equatorial Africa – on paper, that is. It seems size, like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder.

You ask: what do these cartographical conniptions have to do with nuclear energy?

Firstly, there's the folly of overturning long-held conventions through a blithe stroke of the pen. What does it signal? A reluctance to look deeper into why things are what they are, what they may symbolize to others and not just to you, and what advantages may accrue to abide by, even strengthen, the conventions that provide useful predictability.

There is a strong parallel to the international governance of nuclear energy, which exists as an ensemble of norms, treaties, regulations, declarations, codes of conduct – some existing in law, others by convention. With the burgeoning of appetite for nuclear energy the world over, governance instruments help to keep use of nuclear energy peaceful, secure and safe. This is, or should be, the aim of diplomacy in the nuclear space. Doesn’t this make sense from a national security perspective?

Does the map projection change also have meaning in terms of diplomacy and nuclear governance?

Yes, if you look at the role of perception and how that can affect foreign policy and diplomacy. We talked about the difficulty of depicting the earth’s territory and waters on a two-dimensional surface such as a map. A globe, by contrast, offers a better, more “realistic”,  three-dimensional portrayal of the size and location of a country or region.

Like most things, however, there are pros and cons to maps versus globes. On the printed map, you can at least see everything at once – the whole world in fact. But the projection chosen will squeeze or elongate or indeed geographically misplace some parts of the world. With a globe, you have a much better representation of relative placement and size of the world’s regions. However, when you actually look at a globe, you only see part of the world; other parts remain hidden from the viewer’s gaze – much like the dark side of the moon.

So which do you prefer cartographically? (Or cosmographically, to make things even more complicated.)  I guess the answer is: it depends.

In times of geopolitical disruption and uncertainty, my preference is for a globular perspective, as it reminds you there are things you cannot fully see but nevertheless must plan for and, if possible, mitigate through foreign policy strategy and diplomatic tactics.

In the nuclear space, we now have a Canadian nuclear energy strategy. It has a robust international dimension with a strong emphasis on the Trade Commissioner Service to spearhead Canada’s nuclear-related exports and commercial opportunities abroad. All very important and, as they say in the bureaucracy, implementable. Everything lies in plain sight.

However, there are aspects that are not so clear, but equally or even more strongly compelling, depending on the “projection” one is taking. How do these contribute to Canada’s national interest? How are they accommodated in the Nuclear Energy Strategy?

For example, if you take an energy security projection, issues relating to dependency and resilience come to the fore. For Canada, that puts a premium on made-in-Canada materials, technology and innovation.

Preserving one’s own fuel supply through natural uranium, unbeholden to the caprices of foreign-based enrichment and/or fuel fabrication sources, becomes a desirable policy objective, which has foreign policy and diplomatic implications. Is this where you want to go? If so, it puts a thumb on the NES scale, pushing a specific diplomatic emphasis and approach not only to export markets but also to how Canada’s nuclear cooperation agreements are carried out and our priorities in multilateral nuclear governance organizations such as the IAEA, the NEA, the UN.

Now try a different projection: that of national security. In a nutshell, this focuses on reducing actual and potential vulnerabilities to coercion or damage to national interests. As well, it seeks to expand one’s margin of manoeuvre to protect those interests.

Here, the use of nuclear energy internationally is treated as a potential physical threat to Canada’s security. Nuclear technology is inherently dual-capable. It has peaceful uses; it has destructive uses as a weapon. And in between, there can be harmful consequences from large-scale radioactive releases caused by accidents, criminal/terrorist intent, or an act of war – witness the threat posed by Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s nuclear energy facility at Zaporizhzhia.

Foreign policy thus shifts emphasis towards the norms, treaties, rules and regulations that comprise the world of nuclear governance internationally. How do we ensure the physical protection of nuclear materials not only in Canada but in countries with established (or soon-to-be-established) operating facilities? How do we work with others to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its all-important verification and enforcement measures? How do we use Canadian diplomacy to its greatest effect in securing these national security objectives?

A third projection highlights national interest. With this, the focus is primarily on managing interdependence in a time of growing geopolitical conflict and blatant use of economic and military power by the bigger players on the world stage. What is Canada’s role in the shifting tectonics of international interdependence? How can our nuclear knowledge, assets, resources, technology be brought to bear in establishing this role?

This projection focuses on how Canada’s nuclear experience and prowess can be used to build strong relationships with like-minded allies and with countries newly embarking upon, or seriously considering, nuclear energy for their own energy security. This is where enlightened self-interest becomes key. We use a strategic combination of supportive industrial policy, strong export drive, targeted development  aid, and other Canadian assets and resources to deepen and diversify our bilateral nuclear partnerships across the globe.

Weaving a web of such partnerships, whether existing or nascent, strengthens what Prime Minister Carney has identified as the new world in which Canada must live, now and in future. It is in our national interest to have webs such as the one we can fashion through our nuclear expertise, materials and technology. As long as we adopt the “projection” and then the strategy and diplomatic endeavour to go with it.

None of these projections is exclusive of the others. In fact, the Nuclear Energy Strategy contains components of each. It’s just that each has its own internal logic that then requires the appropriate policies and diplomacy to make it successful. (If I were to add a fourth projection, it would be climate security.)

Like looking at a map or a globe, it’s important to be aware of the projection you‘re using in perceiving the world and its relationships. And to be aware too of the distortions or hidden-from-view elements caused by that perception – whether it be energy security, national security or national interest. Then you can identify more clearly and effectively the path you need to take. And Canada needs to take.

Nuclear energy, to my mind, illustrates this wonderfully well, uniting interest, policy, strategy and diplomacy. Maps and globes help us see it.