Should Christians demand all nations disarm themselves of nuclear weapons? A webinar hosted by the World Council of Churches (WCC) argued that the answer must be yes. As of 2021 the United Nations treaty prohibiting nuclear arms has reached 50 signatories with the addition of Jamaica, Honduras and Nauru. Deacon Adebayo Anthony Kehinde, the moderator of the webinar, believes this is just the start.
Webinar speakers included the Rev. James Bhagwan, General Secretary of the Pacific Conference of Churches, Church of England Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, Alicia Sanders-Zakre of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and retired United Methodist Bishop Mary Ann Swenson of the church’s liberal Western Jurisdiction.
Bhagwan and Sanders-Zakre both primarily spoke about the ‘racist’ and ‘colonialist’ elements of nuclear weapons. While the only wartime uses of nuclear weapons were against Japan in 1945, hundreds of tests were conducted in the latter half of the 20th century on and around small islands in the Pacific.
While the testing was “very far and a very safe distance from the colonial powers of the USA, Britain and France, they were done without any consultation” with the locals (the United States conducted 1,054 nuclear tests between 1945 and 1992, the vast majority in the American West and the Marshall Islands. France conducted tests in Algeria and French Polynesia (1960-1996), while the United Kingdom tested in Western Australia and Christmas Island from 1952-1991). After the testing the Pacific Islanders suffered “radiation poisoning,… forms of cancer, deformed embryos and children, tumors and very little attention has been given [to us].” He added that “their cries for justice and reparation have continued to go unheard.”
Sanders-Zakre echoed Bhagwan, noting “the growing stigmatization of these weapons and recognition due to the advocacy of the impacted communities [and the] disproportionate racist impacts of these weapons on colonized and indigenous peoples.”
Cottrell, for his argument advocating a total ban on all nuclear arms, divided Christians into two camps: “Many Christians are pacifists but there are a greater number of Christians who do hold the position that there are certain circumstances when as a last resort it can be appropriate to use force and bear arms.”
However, the use of military force can only be used “in ways that are proportionate and when there is a reasonable expectation that you’ll actually achieve the ends that you want, which obviously is the cause of peace and stability, but to protect the innocent there may be occasions where [force] is appropriate.”
From this perspective Cottrell argues that nuclear weapons can never be used because they are never proportionate, never help the cause of peace and stability and never lead to the protection of the innocent. He also went on to point out that with regard to chemical weapons, landmines and cluster bombs “we have as an international community found ways of agreeing that certain weapons should not be used and therefore not possessed.”
I was puzzled at how strongly Sanders-Zakre and Bhagwan chose to emphasize ‘racism’ and ‘colonialism’ in their arguments for a world disarmed of nuclear weapons. While I’m upset to hear about birth defects and cancer suffered by Pacific Islanders, the last test conducted in the Pacific was by the French in 1996 and it was met with universal condemnation; it’s good that there are no more of these tests, but it’s unclear why past testing should have any bearing on future arms.
Beyond that, the webinar participants didn’t seem interested in engaging in a realistic examination of what would happen if their ideas caught on. Of all nuclear-armed nations the most likely to disarm would be the Western powers of the USA, Britain and France. But, how exactly is a world where the most significant actors for good are disarmed an improvement?
Especially with regard to North Korea, why would giving Kim-Jong Un impunity to wreak havoc bring the world any closer to peace? Sanders-Zakre noted that as the number of signatories to the UN agreement rises there will be increased pressure for countries like America to sign onto it as well. This may be true, but does she believe non-democratic states like Russia or China would ever bow to any kind of pressure, international or domestic, to radically reduce their geopolitical clout?
Cottrell’s argument was more persuasive. Yet, even he also must acknowledge the problems with presuming that just because America, Britain and France disarm that it would give other nations any reason to. Notably, the Russian Orthodox Church not only accepts but endorses Russia’s nuclear arsenal as a shield for the nation against attacks. Moreover, it’s easier to get chemical weapons and the like banned because it comes at no geopolitical cost.
While in America we don’t celebrate our nuclear weapons, we do have a duty to view politics through a lens of Christian realism. Nuclear weapons are a pandora’s box; once they were let out in 1945 there was no putting them back in. The best we can do is limit their proliferation and work to ensure cooler heads prevail.
Comment by David on February 2, 2021 at 6:50 am
Atomic bomb technology is old enough to get Social Security and then some. Any country willing to spend the resources can have their own bomb. When we look at the frequency of wars between major powers, we see a marked drop after after both sides got the bomb. One can argue that it and the advent of ICBMs have been a force of discouraging war. This is hardly an ideal situation, but better than frequent wars.
Comment by Palamas on February 2, 2021 at 1:44 pm
This is a perfect example of the lack of moral seriousness or even meaningful reflection that dominates the WCC aand its mainline constituents. They start with an accurate observation: the use of nuclear weapons against populations results in people getting killed. They then jump immediately to: these weapons are bad and must be abolished.
What never occurs to them are the following: 1) Inanimate objects cannot be inherently good or evil, right or wrong; what matters is the way they are used or not used. 2) The determination of any moral question with regard to such objects therefore is based on the actions of the people who use or don’t use them. 3) Mere possession of the objects harms no one, nor does it cause anyone to take any particular action with them. 4) The record of the last 75 years is that nuclear weapons have killed far fewer people than almost any other kind of object, including guns, bombs, knives, cars, or bathtubs. 5) The likelihood that such weapons would be used if possessed only by Russia, China, and North Korea (three states that have absolutely so intention of bowing to the WCC’s “demands”) would go up exponentially if there were no deterring force countering them. This is what’s called “the real world,” as opposed to the one the WCC and its functionaries inhabit.