Posted Wednesday 22 July 2009
“It is very difficult to defend the possession of weapons of mass destruction with a conditional intent to use them in terms of traditional Christian teaching.” says the Rev Ian Barcroft, Convener of the Church in Society Committee of the Scottish Episcopal Church in a letter to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. In the letter, the Rev Ian Barcroft outlines his concerns regarding the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system and urges the government to reconsider its decision to proceed with a Trident replacement and to place the decommissioning of Trident on the table at the Non Proliferation Treaty review Conference next May. His letter has been endorsed by the College of Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church who have also written to the Prime Minister, giving their full support to the concerns expressed by Rev Ian Barcroft.” Ends
The letter says:
Dear Prime Minister
I write as the Convener of the Scottish Episcopal Church’s Church in Society Committee to urge the government to reconsider its decision to proceed with a replacement for Trident and to place the decommissioning of Trident on the table at the Non Proliferation Treaty review conference in May 2010.
It is very difficult to defend the possession of weapons of mass destruction with a conditional intent to use them in terms of traditional Christian teaching. Christians who take the pacifist position and argue for a commitment to loving non-violence could not accept Trident. Even those who argue that possession can be legitimate would only do so in the context of a firm commitment to moving towards disarmament and ending reliance on weapons of mass destruction.
Such a commitment was given by the United Kingdom when it signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The UK, together with the other nuclear powers, promised that it would work towards disarmament as part of an agreement in which other countries stated that they would not try to develop weapons of mass destruction. Article VI of the treaty mandated the parties ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and at an early date’ as well as making a commitment to working towards a treaty on general and complete disarmament.
We consider that there are two principal arenas for constructive debate. Firstly, there are the United Kingdom’s commitments under the Non Proliferation Treaty. Secondly, the submarine-based Trident system was conceived at a time when strategic considerations were very different from those that face this country now.
If the UK government itself considers that the continuing possession of nuclear weapons is necessary for the future security of the United Kingdom then it severely reduces the moral credibility of the UK government in urging countries such as Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. To practice any form of diplomatic persuasion on such countries, expecting the cessation of nuclear-weapons development, does not seem to us to stimulate any movement towards a ‘yes’ from them, if at the same time, development and deployment of new nuclear weapons systems are being realised by our own government.
At a time when countries such as Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan now have nuclear weapons, and other countries are threatening to develop them, the world urgently needs to follow the path of disarmament rather than a continuing reliance on weapons of mass destruction.
On the more narrowly defined issue of the necessity for a Trident replacement, we do not dispute the dangers of the contemporary world but we respectfully suggest that this is not the way to address them. Submarine-based, multi-targeted systems were conceived at a time of Cold War confrontation but now could hardly be used in response to rogue-nation or terrorist outrage even if the first use of nuclear weapons by such powers was threatened or carried through. Moreover, as with Trident, a successor system would, we suspect, be heavily dependent on transferred technology from, and the consent of, the United States of America. Is it likely that the USA, or even more the UN Security Council, would authorise or approve the use of Trident as a purely UK initiative? As one of the world’s richer nations - notwithstanding the present economic turmoil - there are surely better uses to which our resources and the genius of our people can be put.
Considering this last point, it has been claimed that decommissioning Trident would cost Scotland 11,000 jobs. However, with the necessary will and political imagination, and using a fraction of the billions of pounds saved, it would be possible to create exactly the opposite effect. We consider that appropriate measures to safeguard and create local employment would be a necessary outcome of a morally effective government determined to initiate the early decommissioning of Trident.
Rev Ian Barcroft
Convener, Church in Society Committee
Category:
