Memorandum from Religious Society of Friends
(Quakers)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Religious Society of Friends in
Britain is a religious denomination with 16,000 members in 470
worshipping communities. We are committed to working for peaceful
and effective responses to violence and social injustice.
1.2 We welcome the opportunity of submitting
evidence to the Defence Select Committee on the Future of Trident
but are concerned at the lack of time available for preparing
a submission on an issue of such gravity. A call for evidence,
allowing less than a month for preparation, especially when coinciding
with the Christmas recess, provides inadequate time for the "comprehensive
analysis" of the issues that responsible Government requires.
Such haste seems unwarranted in the context of weapons that "will
start to leave service in the early 2020s."
1.3 The position of the Religious Society
of Friends on issues of peace and disarmament is well known. We
are, however, realists. While we continue to work towards our
vision of a peaceful world, we know the world will not be freed
of weapons of war in any short period. We are aware that the UK
government, supported by the majority of the population, will
feel obliged to retain at least limited military forces for the
foreseeable future.
1.4 We would advocate, however, that these
forces should be strictly defensive, tailored essentially towards
peace-keeping activities. The Religious Society of Friends does
not believe that nuclear weapons can possibly be seen in this
light. They cannot be regarded as a mere defensive deterrent because
their maintenance implies at least a conditional willingness to
use them. If it did not they would not be a deterrent.
1.5 Use of such weapons, even in extreme
circumstances, would be so heavily disproportionate to anything
less than actual nuclear attack on this country as to be unthinkable.
Actual nuclear attack would be so devastating that retaliation
in kind could serve no purpose and only compound the horror.
1.6 We affirm the comments of the Archbishop
of Canterbury that "...these are still weapons that are intrinsically
indiscriminate in their lethal effects, and their long-term impact
on a whole physical environment would be horrendous." We
welcome and affirm the clear position of the Church and Society
Council of the Church of Scotland that the UK should relinquish
its nuclear weapons.
1.7 We do not consider that the White Paper
amounts to "a careful review of all the issues and options"
that is referred to in its introduction. We ask the Government
to learn from the defects of Parliamentary accountability in relation
to the Chevaline programme and to provide for rigorous, transparent
and accountable public debate.
1.8 We urge the Government, MPs and members
of the electorate to which the government is accountable, to respond
to the grave ethical questions that Dr Williams has raised regarding
the morality, legality, and the strategic requirement for nuclear
weapons. We hope that the Defence Select Committee will require
the Secretary of State for Defence to respond to these questions
in detail.
2. MORALITY
2.1 The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
has a long history of seeking peaceful solutions to intractable
political problems. We are committed to an understanding of security
that recognises the inherent, absolute worth of every person.
Our commitment to disarmament is rooted in a Christian understanding
of hope that is incompatible with a willingness to use weapons
of mass destruction. We are unequivocally opposed to the possession
of nuclear weapons and cannot envisage any context in which the
use of nuclear weapons could be justified. We unite with the increasing
concern felt among the Churches regarding Britain's maintenance
of a nuclear weapons system. We note the clear position of the
Church of Scotland in opposition to Trident and note that many
who had previously supported a concept of deterrence now no longer
consider that the arguments are sufficient to justify the UK's
maintenance of nuclear weapons.
3. LEGALITY
3.1 The Non Proliferation Treaty, to which
the UK is a signatory, essentially requires that nuclear weapons
states should take steps towards disarmament in return for those
states that do no have nuclear weapons undertaking not to develop
them. Article VI includes the provision that "Parties to
the Treaty undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date
and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective control." We consider
that the replacement of Trident is incompatible with these obligations.
A replacement programme sends the unedifying message that such
weapons systems are morally acceptable. It would encourage other
States to develop these weapons systems and undermine a rules"
based system that is at the heart of the international rule of
law. We ask the Secretary of State to address both the questions
of whether its programme is in breach of the letter and spirit
of NPT obligations and the following specific concerns:
(i) Nuclear weapons could never be used within
the jus in bellum requirements of necessity and proportionality.
(ii) The Government has failed to specify
scenarios in which the use of nuclear weapons could comply with
International Humanitarian Law prohibitions on indiscriminate
attacks.
(iii) Article VI is a pivotal provision of
the Non Proliferation Treaty such that a breach of the provision
would amount to a breach of the Treaty. Any broadening of the
scope of deterrence policy would amount to a breach of Article
VI and consequently of the Treaty itself. The Government proposes
the following steps to broaden deterrence policy: deterrence against
non-nuclear attack; use as an insurance system against unspecified
future threats; enhancement of targeting policy. The Government
proposals would consequently breach the Non Proliferation Treaty.
4. STRATEGIC
REQUIREMENT
We note that the White Paper does not consider
the impact that renewing nuclear weapons could have on nuclear
proliferation. A decision to enhance nuclear weapons would, in
our opinion, undermine the UK's opposition to access to nuclear
weapons by other states. We note also that the White Paper does
not address the issue of proportionality and necessity. The White
Paper does not contain an adequate analysis and assessment of
what the Government considers are current threats requiring the
maintenance of a nuclear weapons system. It is the responsibility
of a democratic Government to respond to the arguments and views
of those with whom it disagrees. The essence of the Government
case for maintaining nuclear weapons appears to be that "on
our current analysis, we cannot rule out the risk either that
a major direct threat to the UK's vital interest will re-emerge
or that new states will emerge that possess a more limited nuclear
capability, but one that could pose a grave threat to our vital
interests." An insurance system against unspecified threats
does not amount to a compelling case for "a strategic requirement,"
particularly when the UK's possession of nuclear weapons would
only compound such uncertainty. We unite with the submission of
the Baptist, Methodist and United Reformed Church that the logic
supporting the use of nuclear weapons to insure against future
threats would seem to lead us inevitably down the road to nuclear
proliferation.
5. ECONOMIC
We consider it scandalous that while resources
can be found for a nuclear weapons' system costing tens of billions
of pounds the Government is still not able to meet the UN target
of spending 0.7% of GNP on international development. A small
fraction of the resources needed to maintain weapons of mass destruction
could transform the lives of millions in the developing world
and help to build long-term sustainable security. Resources in
the UK could be spent on hospitals, schools and creating economic
opportunities for the young and deprived. Within armed forces
expenditure, the resources spent on nuclear weapons could be used
to develop armed forces suitable for a peace-keeping role.
6. CONCLUSION
We consider that the decision to replace the
Trident Nuclear Weapons system is wrong in principle and that
the process of decision-making has been flawed. We urge the Defence
Select Committee to ensure that the decision to renew Trident
is reconsidered in a calm and thoughtful environment that engages
with the ethical issues raised by the full spectrum of civil society,
Churches and faith communities. The White Paper should be the
starting point for a wide ranging public debate on our future
security needs and should not be used as a means of closing down
political debate.
15 January 2007
| 
