SND3 81
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.
!5 January 2007
