|
Atlanta Consultation III
The Carter Center
Atlanta , Georgia
January 22, 2010
(transcript)
It’s an honor to be here and I do so appreciate the invitation, it’s fun to finally get to one of these gatherings. Eleven years ago I was a founding staff member of the Global Security Institute under Senator Cranston, I’ve been on the board for the past 9 years now and so I’ve known about this gathering for a long time now, but this is the first time I’ve made it down and it’s really a pleasure to be with you all.
I should say I’m really humbled to be here especially after hearing the quality of discourse throughout the day, because I’m not a diplomat. I’m not a nuclear weapons technician. My training is as a preacher and a theologian and an ethicist and that’s really where I’m coming from although I do run an organization that’s wholly devoted to the abolition of nuclear weapons. I had the honor of following Ambassador Duarte at a conference at Yale and he was very eloquent of course and praised the religious community and after following him I felt compelled to say that I’m not a diplomat nor especially diplomatic, so if I’m rash I hope you’ll forgive me and just chalk it up to me being American. And I really am humbled to speak to practitioners. I’m a Baptist preacher, we lack the great costume of our orthodox or catholic brothers and sisters unfortunately but often times religious leaders get brought up to sort of baptize the pronouncement of whatever’s going on. But really it is all of you who are eminently qualified as moral agents and who don’t need someone religious to come up and tell you about the morality of the thing that you’ve chosen to spend your careers on, so just know that I approach this with a certain degree of humility, that in fact I know that everyone here is probably deeply convicted of the moral import of this work.
I wanted to speak on two very different points tonight. Both have to do with the morality of the nuclear issue. The first is though as practitioners you are eminently qualified to make moral evaluations, I do think there is a role for religious and moral voices as stakeholders whose priority is really the moral argument rather than the security of a nation. What that allows us do to is remember that security is not an end unto itself but it serves our understanding of what it means to be a human being. I know that’s something we all believe but it’s something that’s worth remembering, and hopefully those who aren’t in the service of a given nation’s security can help remind us all of that.
The two points I wanted to talk about tonight - one would be to raise the moral dimensions of the NPT and the current state of the non-proliferation regime and what it does to the moral calculus around nuclear weapons in a way that’s not always raised. The second is sort of a report from the trenches. My days are spent traveling to American churches talking with people who have no contact with the nuclear weapons establishment and I thought it might be interesting for some to hear how people on the ground—for whom this really seems like a far off and esoteric issue—are encountering this.
The first point in terms of what the NPT and really the proceedings here have to do with the moral argument around nuclear weapons, I think, has to begin with the reminder that the absolute moral good (at least I’ve put this forward as a thesis) concerning nuclear weapons is their non-use. Now it doesn’t logically follow from that, strictly speaking, that their abolition is an absolute moral good. I think that it is an absolute moral good but I want to point out that if the moral good of nuclear weapons is their non-use. And we can imagine, say, two moral hypothetical futures, one is a road to zero that involves several nuclear weapons being used, the other is the indefinite sustaining of the non-proliferation regime where we continue to possess nuclear weapons and they’re never used. I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that actually the one where nuclear weapons continue to exist but are never used is the more moral of those choices and it’s for that reason that deterrence at least can be morally plausible within the realm of moral hypothetical situations. Deterrence, as repugnant as the treat to inflict this kind of damage can be (and actually I don’t think it can be defended from a Christian perspective), but from a more universal moral perspective, deterrence can be morally plausible as long as it works. But that’s the kicker: as long as it works.
In the post cold war context, what I think the current state of the NPT really brings up for us in terms of considering the moral ramifications of this pressing moral issue, is that an imbalanced nuclear status quo of nuclear haves and have-nots, because it cannot indefinitely be maintained, we have a direct line however long term the scenario is between possession leading to proliferation, and proliferation I would say leading inevitably to use. With indefinite proliferation we undermine the very conditions that deterrence requires. So we have the possibility of nuclear material falling into the hands of “undeterrable” non-state actors. Or we have the spread of nuclear weapons so we have three dozen nuclear armed states at some point in the future; and that’s such an unpredictable scenario that we really can’t count on the rational calculus of deterrence to keep us safe. What this means is that the mechanism I would say, where we find ourselves today the mechanism required for deterrence, which in namely the possession of nuclear weapons results in the conditions by which deterrence itself becomes undermined. What this says is that eventually deterrence just doesn’t work. Deterrence no longer works. This is a truth that’s been described quite eloquently in the four horsemen’s op-ed. In fact we talked a lot today about the quote that the president made in Prague and I understand why he said “it may not happen in my lifetime” but I would actually say it seems to me that nuclear weapons will either be abolished in his lifetime or used. And so it’s not simply a matter of oh we might, I wish him the longest life possible and it’s not that we might get to the end and then there’s more time to go and we could still not have seen the use of nuclear weapons that deterrence is still working – that just doesn’t seem to be a plausible scenario.
And because the undermining of deterrence, because the use of a nuclear weapon would have disastrous consequences for all, regardless of whether it happened on one’s own national soil. What one terrorist bomb would do to the global economy and the global flow of goods means that it’s really in every state’s interest that nuclear weapons never be used. It’s not simply “oh they wouldn’t affect me.” Just as an aside on this point – I think it’s interesting to note that nuclear weapons in this way may be the first historical instance but far from the last (as we would see with climate change) of a cooperative security phenomenon that truly encompasses the globe. Where the pursuit of national interests narrowly construed in a zero sum fashion results in the undermining of that very national interest that they sought to maintain. So because deterrence not only can’t guarantee non-use anymore over the long term – and I’m speaking of the flow of decades, I’m not saying the sky is going to fall tomorrow. Hell and brimstone is my given profession but I’m not going to inflict that on you tonight. Because we’re talking about the long term of deterrence not only guaranteeing non-use but effectively guaranteeing use, that means that deterrence can no longer claim the derivative moral authority of non-use. The absolute good is non-use and deterrence no longer has a plausible claim to it. And so we’ve really arrived at the end of the conditionality that the US Catholic bishops indicated in their 1983 peace pastoral, where they had a strictly conditioned moral acceptance of deterrence. They said, look, its better that these things not be used but only to a certain point can you justify deterrence and if deterrence no longer works then you’re left with a situation where anyone who’s arguing for the indefinite sustaining of the nuclear status quo is either morally ignorant or morally bankrupt, and there aren’t any other options. For this reason, it can no longer claim this derivative moral authority and how this relates to your mission here and your work.
Put simply, I think the title of this gathering “fulfilling the NPT” represents the only plausible course of action that can claim that derivative moral authority of non-use. The only way that we can have a hope, and we all know that something could have gone wrong in Pakistan last night and we wouldn’t even know, something could have gone wrong with fissile material, we wouldn’t know until disaster strikes. It could happen we’re not saying this is a guarantee. But the only plausible course that we have in terms of seeking a world where nuclear weapons continue not to be used is through the fulfillment of the NPT. I do this with fear and trembling and those who know Kierkegaard will forgive me for poaching his phrase, but fear and trembling to talk about a treaty in a room full of diplomats each of whom can skewer me with all the ways that I’m getting this wrong, but I’m going to venture out and disagree with Ambassador Soares on the use of the word “fulfill” which actually strikes me from my completely amateur position, let’s just be clear, my completely amateur position as a diplomat (you’ve already sort of seen this guy would never make it in the foreign service). That the word “fulfill” actually works quite well for the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. There’s this concept in biblical Greek of the tiwas or the purpose, it also means to perfect and for those who know the new testament when Christ says “I came to fulfill the law,” it’s this notion of there’s a purpose and I am encompassing it. And it seems to me that the NPT can’t simply be complied with because it’s something that’s built on a promise. It’s the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world that holds the whole thing together, otherwise it’s just a permanent discriminatory norm. And so there actually is something to be fulfilled regarding the NPT. Because it’s held together by that glue, that’s where we find the derivative moral authority of non-use. That’s the path to it.
That’s just a thought, I work in a land of moral pragmatists and I know we’re not going to moralize the security of nations. It’s a very serious matter and I understand that. But for those who take the moral calculus seriously, who take that dimension seriously, and who don’t just approach the security of nations thinking that it’s simply a game to be played but actually remember it’s in the greater service of humanity. I think that has to be taken with a rather profound recognition that if this is true, there is no other option and that should give us zeal and a passion for our work because we recognize that this is the only thing that can be done with a pure heart. And it also frankly sets those who oppose the Non-Proliferation Treaty in an indefensible position. There’s no moral calculus for defending the status quo over the long haul given that we know what its results will be.
The second point I had was just a report from the field, as it were. I’ve lost count of the number of days I’ve spent on the road. I have a very forgiving wife. I spent the entire fall preaching in churches around the United States to thousands of American Christians. I would just say this is maybe a state of affairs that’s hard to remember if you work in the nuclear arena – what it’s like to feel completely powerless. And maybe you all know exactly what this feels like; I don’t know, I’m not a nuclear diplomat. But to feel completely powerless to engage, that this is an issue that you wouldn’t even know how to touch it if someone gave you instructions. And yet I’ve gone to these churches and talked to people about why this should matter to them and how this reflects on their humanity and their faith and have found an overwhelming response, an overwhelmingly positive response from American conservatives who I deal with almost exclusively. So this is not a left/right issue this is something that is a human issue that we can all support. The Americans in the group will understand the significance of this as will anyone who tracked the last election. I preached at a church in a congressional district that went for John McCain by more than three to one. I didn’t even know those districts existed. This district was blood red. I preached to a thousand people over the course of the weekend on nuclear weapons and the need for nuclear weapons abolition. After one sermon, this giant guy comes up to me and he said “I’m an ex-Navy SEAL” and I believed it and for those of you who don’t know the Navy SEALs are sort of the elite special operatives of the United States Navy and they’re not really known for being soft on defense, because their version of it usually involves coming up behind someone with a knife. And he said “you know I really appreciate hearing this and I support what you’re doing one hundred percent.” So here’s this guy who by any demographic predictors, if you asked any political pollsters where does this guy fall, does he support a nuclear security agenda that results in the elimination of nuclear weapons, there is not a chance in hell—and I know what I’m talking about—there’s not a chance in hell that this guy comes down in favor of the elimination of nuclear weapons and yet there he is because he understood it in his heart.
I was at another church where the sound guy had three vitriolic anti-Obama stickers on the back of his truck, and he told me he would impeach the president if he could. I have no idea what the impeachable offense was, but he was just so mad and after the service we talked and he was never going to come around on the president but he would’ve supported the president’s nuclear agenda because he believed it from where he was coming from with his faith. I have gotten nothing but affirmation that this is something that can transcend political party in the United States when it’s presented in a way that cuts past the old cold war divides.
Let me just say by way of encouragement there are a hundred million self described evangelicals in the United States. The World Evangelical Alliance which represents nearly a half a billion people worldwide has expressed an interest in developing a position of integrity on this issue, and I’m working with them on that. I think there is significant action that is brewing and is going to blow up - no pun intended - that is going to blow up out of the more conservative strain of Protestants both in the United States and worldwide and I should say for my continental brothers and sisters, in the US evangelical doesn’t simply mean protestant, I know it has a very different usage on the European continent. There is a massive amount of potential support and it is brewing up.
The other thing that I would just point out, when I go and talk to people, and I talk to people who aren’t within the church, often I get, “don’t you just want to blow up the world so Jesus will come back.” And I know what we’ve done to give you that impression but for the record no, that’s not really how we’re hoping it’s going to happen. I’m not blind, I know the reputation that American conservative Christians have abroad, I mean, George W Bush was our poster boy for eight years. But there is a generation coming of age that is your friend. They’re committed internationalists, they’re out in front in the AIDS pandemic, they’re out in front on combating poverty, they’re out in front on preventing human sex traffic and slavery, they’re out in front on genocide prevention and they are your friends. Let me be a diplomat for the American Church and say that we want to support the vital work that you are doing.
And I’ll close on that note, this note of encouragement. I know that at these gatherings, and I get to go to some of them, I dress much differently when I go to a church. But I know that these gatherings almost encourage you to check your humanity at the door lest you be cast as idealistic and frivolous, and I know that a great many of you are motivated by deep passions but have to work within the constraints of your given service; and I want you to know that there are thousands and growing of people at least in the United States-- and I’m going to Beirut and Cape Town later on this year to spread this-- there are thousands of people who are counting on you. There are thousands and will be millions of people who depend upon your work. And whether you believe in the same god, they’re praying for you, they care about what you’re doing and your work is a great service to us all. In that spirit of common humanity it really is my deepest privilege to say thank you so much for laboring in these trenches because I know they are trenches, I know the battle’s hard. Bless your evening, I hope you have a good rest. Thank you for your time.
|
 |
