Toward a Theology of Non-Proliferation 

By Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos
Associate General Secretary for International Affairs and Peace
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA 

Second Ecumenical Conference on the Arms Trade
Gothenburg, Sweden
20-23 May 2004

As I begin my presentation, please allow me first to say a word of thanks to the Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation, the Christian Council of Sweden, and the Swedish Mission Council for organizing this important conference on the subject of arms trade.  Indeed, the importance of this conference cannot be lost when we see war being waged in Iraq, genocide beginning in Sudan, tribal conflicts reviving in Afghanistan, systematic violence destroying any chance for peace in Israel / Palestine, terrorism erupting in Europe, and all manner of violence claiming victims around the world.   

Arms – their production, proliferation, and elimination – have occupied the minds of people of goodwill for many years.  Whether the discussion be of nuclear arms or small arms, weapons of mass destruction or conventional weapons, the problem is clear:  the abundance of arms in the world directly threatens the stability, if not the very life, of this planet.  The theme of this conference – the trade in conventional weapons – is a critical component of this problem. 

To all of this, what can a theologian say? 

As a Christian theologian, I will attempt to articulate here some of the theological principals from which to assess trade in conventional weapons.  My argument shall be drawn from Roman Catholic and ecumenical texts, the latter of which assume a consensus of largely Protestant, Anglican, and to a lesser extent Orthodox views, that have dealt squarely with arms issues in general over the last 50 years.  (I say “to a lesser extent” with regard to the Orthodox since the Orthodox Churches have not systematically approached the subject of arms.  But listener should assume that I nevertheless filter these texts through an Orthodox lens.)  Methodologically, then, I will take from earlier texts, assess their theological treatment of the subject, and then extrapolate from them for use on the issue of conventional arms.  It is my hope, then, that this will lead to a coherent theology that can be claimed by all Christian traditions. 

In the 1963 encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII stated:  “[P]eople are living in the grip of constant fear.  They are afraid that at any moment the impending storm may break upon them with horrific violence.  And they have good reasons for their fear, for there is certainly no lack of such weapons.  While it is difficult to believe that anyone would dare assume responsibility for initiating the appalling slaughter and destruction that war would bring in its wake, there is no denying that the conflagration could be started by some chance and unforeseen circumstances” (par. 111).  Of course, the pope was speaking about nuclear weapons.  But if one did not know the speaker or the date of these remarks, could not one mistake these words for someone speaking out on the situation of today’s world?   

The 1950s and 1960s were a time when the fear of nuclear annihilation paralyzed much of the world.  That fear seemed to lessen in the 1970s and 1980s, when the unfortunately-named political doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction ironically brought about a relative sense of calm.  What is most strange is that this same fear – of an “impending storm [that] may break upon [us] with horrific violence” – characterizes the world once again, with the difference now being that, instead of nuclear annihilation – though that possibility is still present – terrorism may destroy the world with a combination of small and conventional weapons.           

John XIII called for the end of the arms race based on the principles of “justice, right reason, and the recognition of [human] dignity” (par. 112).  To do this, he believed that states had to base their relations, and even the peace that is the goal of these relations, on trust and cooperation (par. 113, 114).  It would seem, perhaps only in hindsight, to be that the world missed an opportunity to reorder their relations along these lines in the decade between the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the new era of terrorism inaugurated on September 11, 2001.             

By the end of the 20^th century, a representative of the Catholic Church could state that it was just this opportunity to learn from the past and change for the future – in essence, repent, in the sense of the Greek notion of metanoia – that was needed to avoid the errors of that century.  Archbishop Renato Martino, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, in a 1999 speech before the before the First Committee of the General Assembly on General and Complete Disarmament, cited the horrifying statistics:  110 million dead from war during the 20^th century, with 2 million children killed in armed conflicts in the final decade of the century alone.     In the face of these and other statistics, he repeated the Catholic Church’s call for the regulation of small arms and light weapons to control their sale and transfer, and to stem illicit trade in such weapons, as well as for the elimination of landmines and nuclear weapons.   

This call, as well as the political accountability necessary to implement such regulation, is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:  “The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community.  Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.  The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order” (part 3, sec. 2, chap. 2, art. 5, par. 2315).           

Martino repeated these points in July 2001, both the theological foundation in the dignity of the human person, and the need for regulations in the arms trade, though specifically with regard to the trade in small arms.  In those remarks, before the United Nations International Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects, he distinguished between a “culture of peace and life” and a “culture of violence” in highlighting the two options available to the world.

That was before 9/11.    

It was one month after that fateful day that Martino articulated what had long been an assertion of the Catholic Church, namely that the perpetuation of the culture of violence is integrally linked to development issues.  Careful not to justify acts of terrorism by focusing on its root causes, Martino rightly stated:  “Though poverty is not by itself the cause of terrorism, we cannot successfully combat terrorism if we do not address the worsening disparities between the rich and poor.  We must recognize that global disparity is fundamentally incompatible with global security” (United Nations, 15 October 2001).  It would not be too much of a jump to specifically link the pursuit of arms and the profit inherent in this pursuit to the issue of disparity.  In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does so in no uncertain terms:  “Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples” (par. 2315).  The type of justice to which these statements allude is the same type of justice that informed John XXIII’s thinking nearly 40 years earlier. 

Like the Vatican, the World Council of Churches has deplored the arms race.  And also like the Vatican, its attention has been focused on either weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, and biological) as well as small arms and light weapons.  In a policy document adopted in 2001, the WCC stated the rationale as to why churches were compelled to enter into the arms debate.  Although this document specifically addresses the dilemma posed by small arms, it could equally be applied to the discussion of conventional arms:  “Churches…have a policy role to play, bringing theological insights and moral and ethical perspectives to bear upon the social and political pursuit of small arms control and demand reduction” (Policy Framework and Guidelines on Small Arms and Lightweight Weapons, 18 May 2001).            

Among the theological insights the WCC brings to this debate is that “militarism must be recognized as an idolatry” (Report of the Consultation on Militarism and Disarmament, Geneva, 16-19 October 1989).  If, in fact, the build up of arms feeds militarism, then disarmament is a theological necessity to avoid the dangers of this type of idolatry.   

When this statement was made, in 1989, the WCC also spoke directly to the conventional arms situation at the time:  “We are encouraged by developments related to conventional arms reductions in Europe, particularly by the stated intention of the parties to move toward less provocative military postures and to eliminate the possibility of surprise attack.  Throughout the 1990s, churches should urge governments to reduce conventional weapons down to radically low levels and to advance the principles of non-provocative defense and to explore options for non-violent defense or security options” (ibid).  Judging by the lack of documentation on conventional arms since then, it would appear that the churches did not follow through on this recommendation.  And judging by the fact that this second Gothenburg conference is being held, it would seem that other relevant parties did not heed the call to reduce trade in conventional arms.           

One emphasis of the WCC has been the reduction of weapons to a minimum necessary and sufficient for defense.  This is important, in that it recognizes the legitimate need for nations to keep arms necessary for the defense of their people.  The question of morality and immorality primarily has to do with an abundance of arms, which threatens stability and ultimately deprives poorer nations of resources for general economic development.  In a letter on the subject, dated 1 October 1990, the General Secretary of the WCC stated the organization’s “continuing support for initiatives leading to the limitation or reduction of armaments to minimal defensive levels, and to building a new security order.”  Cognizant of the fact that such limitation and reduction would lead to “shrinking markets in Europe,” the General Secretary also noted that arms manufacturers “will be looking eagerly for new markets to which to divert their surplus and future arms production [and thus] is more likely to lead to a massive increase in arms sales to the developing world.”  The negative implications of this are clear.            

Documents from as early as 1948 through as recently as this year articulate the WCC’s position on various related themes:  nuclear arms, nuclear weapons testing, chemical and biological arms, landmines, small arms, etc.  The most comprehensive statement on the subject came during the organization’s World Convocation on Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation, which took place in Seoul in 1990.  As stated in the convocation’s declaration, the participants called:  “For the demilitarization of international relations and the promotion of non-violent forms of defense:  through a defensive, non-threatening and non-offensive posture of security measures and the development of civilian-based defense; through radical reduction and eventual abolition of all nuclear weapons and while nuclear weapons still exist, a progressive development of international control and thorough verification measures; through reduction and limitation of conventional weapons and elimination of chemical and biological weapons; through immediate cessation of all nuclear weapon testing and stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons by strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and ensuring that the nuclear weapon states fulfill their obligation of disarmament under the NPT; through unilateral steps of disarmament as well as bi- and multi-lateral steps and processes of disarmament; through preventing an arms race in space through observance of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; [and] through denuclearization of the navies of the world and encouraging states not to allow to come into their harbors and waters ships which cannot convincingly indicate that they have no nuclear weapons on board.”   

For its part, the National Council of Churches USA has addressed the issue of arms in as broad a manner as the WCC.  Observing the start of the arms race in the early years of the Cold War, the NCC stated:  “History offers convincing evidence that the kind of peace for which Christians pray cannot be achieved by piling gun upon gun and bomb upon bomb.  We warn the people of our churches that the civilization which they treasure may be destroyed unless the nations agree on a plan for the control of armaments on a global scale” (“International Regulation and Reduction of Armaments,” November 28, 1951).   

The specter of global nuclear annihilation, complete with visions of the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had already been contemplated by the time this was written.  Talk of nuclear annihilation has seemed by 2004 to have died down – the possibility of WMDs possessed by rogue states, the contemplation of bunker busters and other “useable” nuclear weapons, and the rhetoric surrounding nuclear programs in North Korea and Southeast Asia notwithstanding.  Nevertheless, the fear of the destruction of civilization is still alive in the United States, if not throughout the entire world, now through the onslaught of terrorism.  Nuclear weaponry still figures into the equation, through apprehension over the possible use of “dirty bombs” or the fall of unstable nuclear states into terrorist hands, but as the terrorists themselves have shown us, their ability to carry out horrific acts of mass killing is not limited to the use of nuclear materials.  (For an analysis of the possibility of the use of nuclear material by terrorists, see the Friends Committee on National Legislation publication, “At the Crossroads: Disarmament or Re-Nuclearization,” March 2004, 7-8).           

Since the only end that can be foreseen in a world that considers security in terms of armaments is death and destruction, there is a theological imperative for people of faith to oppose the excessive production and proliferation of arms. This was recognized by NCC when the arms race intersected with the race to outer space.  To wit:  “We declare that the present crisis with its dangers and opportunities, while partially military and scientific, is of broader and deeper nature.  It is also educational, political, psychological, economic, diplomatic, and cultural.  Even more fundamentally, it is moral and spiritual.  It is related to…the understanding of God and His will, the nature of man and his destiny.  In this new era God is still sovereign, Lord of men and nations.  God continues to rule over history with judgment and with grace.  Still ‘the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein.’  These new powers of man have been discovered and developed under the Creator’s sovereignty.  God’s will for justice, freedom, and peace has been revealed in Jesus Christ.  We believe…that God wills for man to live in love and reconciliation” (“Some Hopes and Concerns of the Church in the Nuclear-Space Age, December 5, 1957).             

The Christian theological position on arms, then, according to the NCC, is God’s sovereignty over a world in which he desires peace and reconciliation among people.  Anything contrary to this principle would be considered antithetical to the Christian Gospel.  Indeed, after stating this article of faith, the statement in which it is expressed goes on to say:  “We hold that military might provides no sufficient security.  While most of us think that our nation should maintain an adequate national defense, some of us feel that all armament is futile, but we all agree that even if there is a shield of arms, larger constructive work must be undertaken on many lines for peace with justice and freedom” (ibid).   

The juxtaposition of this same theological principle and call to rational thinking vis-à-vis arms formed the basis of what the NCC issued in 1960 as an “Agenda for Action for Peace” (“Toward a Family of Nations Under God: Agenda of Action for Peace, June 2, 1960).  This agenda included proposals to infuse morality into political action, to eliminate weapons through enforceable agreements, to improve the standards of life in less developed countries, to promote human rights and freedoms, and to pursue reconciliation among nations.  For the purposes of our discussion here, disarmament – whether it be weapons of mass destruction, conventional arms, or small arms – was seen as crucial to the achievement of peace, the kind of peace with justice that God has deemed right for the world.  This principle and call also came to serve as the basis for asking Christians, in the midst of the Vietnam War, to “examine seriously the questions raised by the United States emphasis on military power in the pursuit of security” (“Defense and Disarmament: New requirements for Security,” September 12, 1968).  Similar themes ran through subsequent statements throughout the 1980s and 1990s. 

The 20^th century ended with a NCC statement that included the following among the seven “pillars of peace” in the coming century:  “Peace rooted in justice requires the nurturing of a culture of peace in homes, communities, religious institutions, nations and across the world; the use of non-violent means of resolving conflict; appropriate systems of common security; and the end of the unrestrained production, sale and use of weapons worldwide” (“Pillars of Peace for the 21^st Century”: A Policy Statement on the United Nations,” November 11, 1999).  These pillars – having to do with political accountability, economic justice, legal standards, liberation and empowerment, conflict resolution, human rights, and environmental stewardship – were set with the cement of a half-century of thinking on what makes for peace.  Four years into the new century, and where are we? 

The theological principles upon which the Christian Churches over the years have worked to reduce and eliminate weapons are principles quite fundamental to the Christian Faith itself.  These theological principles demand that adherents of the faith live their lives through actions reflective of these principles.  The belief in God demands that believers turn away from the idolatry of militarism, and not engage in pursuits that support it.  The belief in the sovereignty of God requires believers to find their security in God, and not in armaments.  The belief in the abundant love of God calls upon believers to love their neighbors, not actively seek or even passively allow things that would harm their neighbors.  The belief in the dignity of the human person requires that believers seek equity for all, not the advantage of one over another.  The belief in God’s overriding justice demands that believers seek justice, reconciliation, and peace among nations, and not conflict or policies that breed conflict.                 

In current discussions, these theological principles and behavioral imperatives find their voice in the general appeal to the moral and ethical leadership that religious communities can offer.  It is up to the Churches to articulate as effectively as possible the morals and ethics involved in the disarmament debate.  For example, the Churches could better help draw the distinction between legitimate defense needs and superfluous stockpiling of weapons.  The Churches could better help point out when the sensible appeal to defense is manipulated, especially through fear, in order to justify unbridled military expenditure.  The Churches could better help demonstrate the dangers of the porous boundary between the licit and illicit arms trade.  The Churches could better help raise a red flag when weapons are being sold to regimes that imperil human rights through the oppression of their peoples.  The Churches could better help expose the irrationality of policies such as “useable” nuclear weapons.  And, as in the case of landmines, the Churches could better help call attention to the senseless destructiveness of certain types of weaponry.           

Admittedly, the largest gap in this analysis, due to the gap in attention given it over the years, not only by the Churches, but also by governments and non-governmental agencies as well, is in the area of conventional weapons.  This is no doubt due to a number of factors:  the reliance on such weapons for legitimate defense needs; the relative absence of the kind of overwhelming destruction as represented by nuclear weapons; the non-comparison to the sheer insanity of the small arms epidemic.   Nevertheless, the same principles that have been applied to the analyses of other types of weapons can be applied to conventional weapons.

Do legitimate defense needs really require the huge stockpiling of conventional weapons?  Are transfers of conventional weapons to developing countries contributing to the instability of the world?  Is insufficient regulation of licit arms trading allowing for the illicit trade in conventional weapons?  Do the resources spent on conventional weapons negatively impact development of impoverished nations?  I think we know the answers to these questions.           

In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, both of which comprise the very heart of the Churches, we find several references to the dichotomy between war and peace, between the pursuit of tools for war and pursuit of tools for peace, between the situation before God of those who make war and the situation before God of those who make peace.  In the Pentateuch, we find that this dichotomy comes down to a choice.  It is a choice put before all human beings:  “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendents may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days” (Deut. 30:19-20a, RSV).  Choose life.  This is the covenant God makes with human beings.  This is the choice put before us today.  Choose life, and all that makes for life.            

As we look at weaponry in all its forms, we must contemplate the choices before us.  In all the decisions involving the development, trade, and use of weapons, do we…choose life?           

Thank you.