Column Getting beyond the deterrent paradox
By THOMAS C. FOX
It is called moral paradox. But I
wonder if one day it will be spoken of as moral blindness? I am pondering
nuclear deterrence. Most of us don't think much about it anymore. Not since the
end of the Cold War. Not since stockpiles are getting lower. But the issue has
not gone away.
Especially not for Catholics and others who aspire to moral lives.
I for one imagine the day our offspring, pondering nuclear weaponry and
deterrence, will look back and wonder how we could have been so blind.
It has been more than 50 years since the flash over Hiroshima and
the beginning of the stockpiling of nuclear weapons. We seem to have made peace
with this demon of terror, even as we wonder how terror has become such a
common part of modern life. When we think of it, we explain away the potential
destruction and the implied threats, saying the only purpose of these weapons
is to prevent their use.
We call it moral paradox. But the weapons' power gives us sway in
the world.
For Catholics a particular problem is that use of these weapons
runs directly counter to a central moral affirmation in our church's
traditional war teaching: that innocent lives are not open to direct
attack.
Writing in the 1983 peace pastoral, "The Challenge of Peace," our
bishops stated that "under no circumstances may nuclear weapons or other
instruments of mass slaughter be used for the purpose of destroying population
centers or other predominantly civilian targets."
The problem is that for nuclear deterrence to work the threat must
be real. That is, we must truly be ready to use these weapons. Just consider
our active Trident submarine fleet. U.S. policy is to use nuclear weapons if
necessary. So the deadly posturing continues. With or without an enemy.
Pondering the deterrence dilemma, our bishops offered a "strictly
conditioned moral acceptance" of nuclear deterrence, not as a "long-term basis
for peace," but "as a step on the way toward progressive disarmament."
Many hailed the fine-tuning; others saw it as a cop-out.
Longtime Catholic peace activist Eileen Egan refers to it as
"weasel wording" of the worst kind. "What really gets to me," she said
recently, "is that the pope [John Paul II] said [in Hiroshima] that humanity
must make a moral about-face on nuclear warfare. It is the church that must
make a moral about-face. We can't wait for humanity."
Egan has never accepted nuclear deterrence as a moral posture. She
remains unyielding in her opposition to the production, deployment or use of
any nuclear weapon. Her position has been consistent even before she lobbied to
have nuclear weapons condemned at the Vatican Council in Rome in the
mid-1960s.
Eight countries today are known to have nuclear weapons. The five
declared nuclear powers are: United States, over 9,000 warheads deployed and
some 11,000 in reserve or awaiting dismantling; Russia, over 10,000 warheads
deployed and some 10,000 in reserve or awaiting dismantling; France, over 500
warheads; China, about 450 warheads; United Kingdom, about 300 warheads.
Additionally, three "threshold" states have not officially confirmed their
possession of nuclear weapons: Israel, with an estimated 200 warheads; India,
materials for 15-25 warheads; and Pakistan, materials for 6-10 warheads.
As the Cold War simmered down, the nuclear arms race between the
United States and the Soviet Union was replaced by arms reductions under the
START I and START II treaties. Both countries have "detargeted" their nuclear
weapons.
Meanwhile, ratification proceedings for START II began in the
Russian Duma in June 1995, but are in trouble. The START treaties, even if both
are ratified and implemented, are not disarmament treaties but arms control
treaties. Some of these weapons are to be dismantled, but the majority are
being placed in reserve and could be used at some later time to expand deployed
arsenals.
The Cold War may be over, but old habits die hard. The growing
fear among scientists, policy makers and activists is that the world has come
to accept nuclear deterrence as a permanent way of life. It is this fear that
gave birth in April 1995, during the first weeks of the Nonproliferation Treaty
Review and Extension Conference, to efforts to rid the world entirely of
nuclear weapons. At that time activists from around the world, recognizing that
the issue of nuclear abolition was not on the agenda, met to write a statement
that has become the founding document of what is called the Abolition 2000
Network.
More than 600 nongovernmental organizations -- NGOs -- on six
continents have signed the statement, which calls for a "world free of nuclear
weapons." Among the statement's points are those calling for conclusion of
negotiations on a nuclear weapons abolition convention by the year 2000. The
convention would require phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a
specific time frame, with provisions for effective verification and
enforcement. The statement further calls for a prohibition of nuclear weapons
research, design, development and testing.
Meanwhile, one of the most important nuclear disarmament events of
1997 will be the Preparatory Committee meeting for the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, taking place April 7-18 at the United Nations. At this meeting,
government representatives will be assessing the state of the treaty, leading
up to a review conference in the year 2000, and NGO disarmament activists will
be speaking their minds.
The treaty, which became effective in 1970, is to date the
centerpiece of the world's efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Most of the world's nations have signed the treaty, surrendering their right to
acquire a nuclear weapons capacity. The five nuclear powers, which are also
treaty signatories, are obliged by Article VI of the treaty to "pursue in good
faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament."
Momentum for disarmament is growing, moved by the belief that the
moment has arrived -- and may quickly pass -- for humanity to decide whether
nuclear weapons will become a permanent part of planetary life. Last December,
two more retired U.S. generals, Lee Butler and Andrew Goodpaster, called for
the elimination of all nuclear weapons. They were only two of dozens of
generals and admirals from 17 countries, including Russia and the United
States, who called for deep reductions in nuclear stockpiles and "the declared
principle of continuous, complete and irrevocable elimination of nuclear
weapons."
April 6, 1997, marks the beginning of what is being called "the
1,000 Day Count-Up To The Year 2000." The U.N. gathering begins the next
day.
If you have not thought much about nuclear deterrence lately and
find yourself among those who believe the threat of mass destruction of
civilian populations is not compatible with Catholic thought, the Abolition
2000 effort deserves your attention and support.
If your group or organization wishes to sign on to the Abolition
2000 statement, send an E-mail message stating contact name, organization name,
address, fax, telephone and E-mail address to: wagingpeace@napf.org. Or,
for further information contact: Pamela Meidel, Facilitator, Abolition 2000
Global Network, P.O.Box 220, Port Hueneme, CA 93044 USA; tel: (805)
985-5073.
Abolition 2000 takes one beyond acquiescence to the so-called
moral paradox.
Tom Fox is NCR editor and publisher.
National Catholic Reporter, March 21,
1997
|