Good news on Trident from the Cof E

The Secretary of the APF reports on the synod debate on Trident:

Note on the Trident debate at the General Synod on 26th February 2007
Background paper
The debate was informed by a report of the Mission and Public Affairs Council entitled The future of Trident. Appended to this was (1) the Council’s submission to the House of Commons’ Defence Committee’s inquiry into the Governments White Paper on ‘The future of the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent’. They are available on the Church of England’s website (January 2007) and (2) a statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the White Paper (December 2006). The latter called for ‘a genuine debate in which Christians, and others whose consciences are disturbed by these proposals, will want to play a full part’.
The papers are available on the Church of England’s website.
The motion and outcome of vote
The motion for the debate was as follows.
‘That this Synod recognising the fundamental responsibility of Her Majesty’s Government to provide for the security of the country:
1. welcome the response from the Mission and Public Affairs Council to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee’s inquiry expressing serious questions about the proposed renewal of the UK’s minimum deterrent;
2. call on Christian people to make an informed contribution to the issues raised in The Future of Trident in the light of Christian teaching about Just War; and
3. urge Her Majesty’s Government to consider further whether and how the proposed upgrading of Trident lies within the spirit of the United Kingdom’s obligations in international law and the ethical principles underpinning them.’

There was just one amendment to the motion. Following debate this was carried by 165 to 149 votes. It changed paragraph (c) to:

c. suggest to Her Majesty’s Government that the proposed upgrading of Trident is contrary to the spirit of the United Kingdom’s obligations in international law and the ethical principles underpinning them.
So, after the amendment, the motion is a little stronger than the original. It was carried by 206 votes to 38. It has been interpreted by staff writers as ‘a strengthening of the Church of England’s opposition to the renewal of Trident’.

Some points from the debate made before the amendment

Bishop Tom Butler, Vice-chair of the Mission and Public Affairs Council drew members attention to some points in the council’s report. These included reference to the Government’s obligation to provide security for the country; the importance of using the Just War to make an informed contribution to the debate; and the UK’s obligation to the Non-proliferation Treaty pointing out that upgrading nuclear weapons is not in the spirit of the treaty.

Bishop Peter Price (who is APF’s Bishop Protector) said that nuclear weapons were unjustified and inimical to the gospel of peace; UK should not break with the Non-proliferation Treaty; and that the atom bomb hides the cross. He said he would support the motion but wished that it could have been more radical.

Archbishop Rowan Williams argued that the deterrent argument should not outweigh the moral inadmissibility of nuclear weapons. He said, ‘I am sorry that the original motion was not rather stronger. I support it as a way of putting down a marker about the tactics of modern war, about that category of weapons which cannot be morally approved. I believe that the least a Christian body ought to do would be in these circumstances to issue the strongest possible warnings and discouragements to our Government.’

The Revd Moira Astin (APF member), argued against nuclear weapons and said that ‘we are being too parochial in our definition of peace. We have a responsibility to protect life which goes beyond the UK.’

Many other views were expressed with slightly more supporting the Trident replacement that rejecting it. Some believed that the motion was not specific enough to be of particular value. Several said that the UK should break out of the cycle of nuclear enhancement and risk insecurity. Two retired army officers argued strongly for nuclear deterrence and one said that the Chiefs of the General Staff had given their agreement in principle to the Trident replacement. There were criticisms of members of the Defence Select Committee in that it did not take a lead on a non-proliferation strategy by rejecting the replacement. Most of the arguments against centred on the uncertainty of future of international developments and the need to be prepared for all eventualities.

One member referred back to the Lord ’s Prayer which was said at the beginning of the session and said that the need for security has led us into temptation.

Mr Justin Brett (Oxford) moved the amendment and just a few statements were made on this. Most supported it while a few others thought it did not go far enough – the word ‘suggest’ was thought to be too weak.