Trident: Bruce Kent and the Bishop of Chelmsford are ‘wise as serpents and (hopefully) as harmless as doves.’

April 8, 2019

o

Renowned peace campaigner, Bruce Kent, has called on the Catholic bishops of England and Wales to condemn the Trident replacement plans.

Speaking to The Tablet at the 27th Ash Wednesday Witness at the Ministry of Defence, at the start of Lent, Mr Kent said: “It’s a time of penance, and prayer. And here is the most awful thing in the world, weapons that can destroy whole cities and thousands of people” (below) and that triggering a nuclear attack is “absolutely impossible, morally”.

He acknowledged that the bishops have condemned nuclear weapons in general, and singled out Archbishop of Liverpool, Malcolm McMahon, for his stance on nuclear weapons. 

After urging the Bishops’ Conference to speak out about Trident replacement, that Christian CND has estimated will cost more than £200 billion, he continued: “Now that we’re going to spend £200 billion on more nuclear weapons, I would expect a statement from the bishops about the immorality of it. And I’m still waiting”.

On April 5th, The Times reported that senior clergy are calling on Westminster Abbey to cancel a ceremony to honour Trident submarine crews, planned for May 3, to mark 50 years of Britain’s “continuous at-sea deterrent”, because it appears to “celebrate” nuclear weapons.

Today Dr Julian Lewis, MP, Chairman, defence committee, countered one assertion in a letter:

“Far from being “designed to indiscriminately kill and destroy thousands of innocent civilians”, as (the Bishop of Colchester) asserts, these weapons have been created — and for 50 years successfully deployed by the Royal Navy — to eliminate any realistic possibility of hostile powers threatening to kill millions of British civilians with impunity”. He did not cite the Bishop of Chelmsford’s more accurate reference to an affirmation in July last year by the church’s General Synod, that (emphasis added):

“(N)uclear weapons, through their indiscriminate and destructive potential, present a distinct category of weaponry that requires Christians to work tirelessly for their elimination”.

Lambeth Palace said that there were no plans for the Bishop to the Armed Forces or the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend the invitation-only ceremony, which will be attended by Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, Earl Howe, the defence minister, and Admiral Sir Philip Jones, the First Sea Lord.

The Bishop of Chelmsford, Stephen Cottrell, also said that he did not doubt Westminster Abbey’s good intentions in celebrating those men and women who serve in the Royal Navy on these nuclear submarines, but saw this service as appearing also to celebrate the weapons, adding:

“I hope the abbey will include other voices in this service which can bear witness to the horror of nuclear weapons and the growing consensus . . . to work for their elimination.”

 

 

 

 

o

Advertisements

Is XR aware of the impact of the world’s military industry on climate change?

February 23, 2019

o

A video comment by Bruce Kent about military production increasing climate change prompted the writer to search archives and online sources – finding that preparation for war is as harmful to the environment as war itself.

Earlier references on this site to the important but hampered work of former naval officer Louise Say may be seen here.  She spent four years investigating environmental security, deflected to a considerable extent by an information lock-down in this country.

As she pointed out “During both time of conflict and in peacetime, military operations have caused and continue to cause varying degrees of ecological destruction” (doctoral thesis, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford.1998, now lodged with the Peace Museum). The only easily accessible reference to her time there is her rarely used Twitter page. Prophetically, over 20 years ago, Louise Say wrote:

“In the light of the increasing evidence of the environmental damage caused by military forces and the extent of environmental decline in general, it is debatable whether it will continue to be acceptable for defence policy to give environmental issues a low priority or for military forces”

StudentEnergy.org, a site built using the input and recommendations of hundreds of young people from all over the world, focusses on this subject, asserting that worldwide militarism is responsible for substantial greenhouse emissions (Louise quoted a figure of 10%) and waste of energy. It continues, “How much harm is done to our natural environment can only be estimated, but there are voices that regard militarism as the largest polluter on the planet”.

One example quoted is that of depleted uranium (DU) penetrators manufactured in Colonie, NY state, from 1958-1984 and waste DU from the manufacturing process incinerated in the plant’s furnace, which led to prolonged releases of DU aerosols. According to the Met Office (2016) the gases used as propellants in spray cans were damaging to the ozone layer and, under the Montreal Protocol, these have been replaced by non-ozone depleting substitutes. However, these gas replacements are greenhouse gases and do add to the global warming problem.

The Economic Times reports fears that the US High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP), which heats the upper atmosphere with a focussed and steerable electromagnetic beam, might have contributed to global warming (Environment Minister Anil Madhav Dave). Many other charges are dismissed as conspiracy theory in an article in the Scientific American.

The U.S. military is the single greatest institutional contributor to the growing natural disasters intensified by global climate change

So writes H. Patricia Hynes, a former professor of environmental health at the Boston University School of Public Health, who now directs the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice. She forthrightly states “Eco-socialism or barbarism: there is no third way”. She wrote in detail about the ‘military assault on the global climate’ in 2015, focussing on the exclusion of the environmental impact of the Pentagon’s global operations which makes U.S. carbon dioxide emissions appear far less than they in fact are. 

Physicist Dr Philip Webber focusses on the longer-term effects of a nuclear war, in particular, disruption to the global climate, the ozone layer, ecosystems and food supplies and says: “It has to be regarded a shocking indictment of our ‘civilisation’ that current stockpiles of nuclear weapons are sufficient to cause such a global catastrophe”. 

One paragraph:

“Exploding nuclear warheads over ‘combustible targets’ such as cities and factories would lead to widespread, intense fires that would inject massive amounts of smoke into the atmosphere leading to the formation of extensive high-altitude smoke clouds. These would cause cooling of the climate in a similar fashion to that observed after very large volcanic eruptions (for example, Krakatoa in 1883), but on a rather larger scale, threatening agriculture and hence food supplies across the world. Other effects included major damage to the ozone layer – which protects humans and ecosystems from damaging ultra-violet rays from the Sun – and the long-lived effects of radioactivity”. The fully referenced report may be read here. 

In the words of Patricia Hynes: “To sum up, it seems neither equitable, nor just or fair for the world’s militaries to consume fuel and energy without scrutiny, to discharge tremendous amounts of greenhouse and highly toxic emissions without regulation, to divert financial resources needed for climate mitigation as well as adaption and to continue unchecked on a path toward catastrophic climate change”.

 

 

 

o


Is Donald Trump’s letter being undervalued by the media?

May 24, 2018

The Financial Times reports that Donald Trump has cancelled the meeting with Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s leader, which was to have taken place in Singapore on June 12.

It provided a copy of the cancellation letter from the White House released hours after North Korea said it had destroyed its nuclear test site in a move that was designed to show its sincerity about pledges to denuclearise.

 

 

 

o


The two Korean leaders have declared there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula

April 27, 2018

o

A tentative hope was fostered after reading – on December 17th – about South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s meeting with China’s Xi Jinping. The trip — Mr Moon’s first state visit to Beijing — was used to mend bilateral ties, which disintegrated this year after China launched an economic boycott of South Korean companies and goods. In Beijing, Mr Moon urged Xi Jinping, China’s president, to step up efforts to solve the nuclear crisis with North Korea.

The earlier hope has been strengthened by the news in the Korea Times today

Read [FULL TEXT] Panmunjeon Declaration

President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un have now signed the “Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula,” in which they made it clear there would be no more war on the peninsula and that a new era of peace has begun.

President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un have announced that South and North Korea will seek to hold tripartite talks with the United States, or talks including China, with the goal of declaring an end to the Korean War (1950-53) this year and establishing permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula, Friday.

Kim Jae-chun, a professor at Sogang university, said: “South Korea believes there is a role to be played by China . . . China could become an arbiter between the US and North Korea. The Moon government will be turning to China to say you guys have to calm things down with North Korea. But China will also ask South Korea to try convince the US to lower its rhetoric.”

Kim Rahn (Korea Times) reports that, in a joint declaration they announced after the summit at the truce village of Panmunjeom, the two leaders reaffirmed the joint goal of making the Korean Peninsula nuclear-free through complete denuclearization. To attain this goal and for further discussions on the North Korea nuclear issue, Moon will visit Pyongyang this autumn. Points made in the declaration were summarised:

(1)  Two Koreas agree to declare the end of the Korean War that has been suspended since an armistice agreement in 1953.

(2)  Two Koreas agree to set denuclearization as a common goal and work together to make the Korean Peninsula nuclear free.

(3)  South Korean President Moon Jae-in will visit Pyongyang in autumn.

(4)  Two Koreas agree to stop a range of hostile acts on the ground, in the air and on the ocean.

(5)  Starting May 1, the two Koreas will stop broadcasting propaganda on the inter-Korean border.

(6)  Two Koreas will set up a jointly operated liaison office in Gaeseong, North Korea.

(7)  On Aug 15, the two Koreas will host reunions of families separated by the 1950-53 Korean War.

(8)  Two Koreas agreed to reconnect an inter-Korean railroad on the East Coast.

(9)  Two Koreas will jointly participate in the 2018 Asian Games.

Moon said, “North Korea’s pre-emptive nuclear freeze will be a valuable beginning for complete denuclearization of the peninsula.” Kim said, “I’m making efforts so that the agreement we made today will not turn out like before, but produce a good outcome  . . . If the people of the two Koreas can pass on the road I passed today, if Panmunjeom becomes a symbol of peace, the people of the two Koreas will enjoy joint prosperity.”

Moon added: “Today I and Kim set a milestone, which will not be shaken, toward co-prosperity and unification”.

 

 

 

o

o


Cardinal Keith O’Brien

March 20, 2018

Cardinal Keith O’Brien, who has just died, was one of the signatories of the 1980s Just Defence Charter. He reaffirmed support for Just Defence and agreed to be placed on the Civilisation 3000 mailing list in 2009.

Ekklesia reported that on Saturday 16 April 2011 he urged the British Government to give up its “shameful” nuclear weapons programme.

“Do the right thing and give it up,” he declared at a demonstration outside the Royal Navy’s nuclear base in Faslane. Cardinal O’Brien told peace protesters: “Here at the gates of Faslane, there is no better place to say that it is not courageous of Britain to have these dreadful weapons of mass destruction. It is shameful to have them.”

He cited Pope Benedict XVI, who said:

“This point of view, that nuclear weapons have any place in a civilized society, is not only baneful but also completely fallacious. In a nuclear war there would be no victors, only victims. The truth of peace requires that all agree to change their course by clear and firm decisions and strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament . . .In a nuclear war there would be no victors, only victims.”

Andrew McKie’s obituary, in the Herald, covered many aspects of the cardinal’s life, including that he was a keen cyclist and hillwalker, a convivial and popular figure.

After reading a truly disgraceful account of his life in the Murdoch Times, I attempted, with permission, to add Bruce Kent’s thoughts (below) as a comment. It was not accepted; a red notice said I was attempting to enter ‘malformed content’ – actually that description could have been applied to their obituary.

To: letters@theherald.co.uk

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:30:17 GMT
Subject: Cardinal O’Brien

Dear Editor My friend, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, now faces a tribunal which none of us will escape.

Were I his Counsel for the Defence I would want it taken into account that very few bishops have had the courage and common sense to challenge, on moral grounds, the policies of the nuclear weapon establishment – as he did.

In his view the use of such weapons would mean mass murder and so-called deterrence means an ongoing willingness to do just that.

He was as clear on such matters in his time as is Pope Francis today.

That he failed to live up to the sexual standards to which he was committed, as he himself admitted, is both sad and damaging.

It is time now to acknowledge also the good he did and to pray that he may rest in peace.

Yours faithfully

Bruce Kent
Vice President
CND

 

 

 

o


John Bickersteth died on January 29th, 2018

March 3, 2018

 .

I heard of the death of John Bickersteth in January with regret. He was one of the signatories of the 1980s Just Defence Charter who reaffirmed support for Just Defence and agreed to be placed on the Civilisation 3000 mailing list in 2009.

Looking back over the message in which he asked for the purpose of the website made me realise how poorly the undertaking given to him had been carried out in recent years.

John Bickersteth was an actively ecumenical Anglican clergyman who served as the Bishop of Bath and Wells from 1975 to 1986, and Clerk of the Closet from 1979-1989.

His earlier military service is documented here and in the archives of the Imperial War Museum. He also edited The Bickersteth Diaries,1914-1918, which were compiled from 11 volumes written by his grandmother Ella. They tell the story of his three uncles who fought in the trenches and whose letters brought the horrors of the First World War vividly to life.

JUST DEFENCE CHARTER 

As those who seek to contribute to our national security in Parliament or other positions in public and professional life, the signatories of this Charter agree:

  1. The defence of our country and of our way of life must be strong and effective. This is the right of the British people and nothing less will enjoy their support. 
  2. Defence policy must be for defence only, and clearly seen as non-provocative to others. Modern technology, which has changed so much of our industrial and social life, has also transformed the nature of warfare. Conventional defence can now become doubly powerful to deny success to an aggressor through the intelligent use of new and cost-effective technology. 
  3. A non-provocative doctrine of ‘defence only’, will reduce international tension and substitute policies of political detente for those of political confrontation. 
  4. Those who are clearly non-provocative in their policies will be best placed to stabilise any crisis and prevent it escalating into major conflict either through fear or misunderstanding. 
  5. Since weapons of mass destruction are, by their nature, threatening and provocative, British defence policy should not depend on the use of nuclear weapons. To this end Britain should phase out the storage or operation of such weapons. 
  6. The early reduction to a strict minimum of strategic nuclear weapons confined to the two superpowers would be a major and welcome step towards creating the conditions of detente and mutual security which will allow for the ultimate elimination of all such weapons. 
  7. World security depends on the progressive reduction of all offensive weaponry, whether nuclear or non-nuclear. A ‘Just Defence’ policy for Britain would be a significant contribution to that end; and we should seek to persuade other countries with whom we are allied or associated to adopt a similar policy.
  8. ‘Just Defence’ must accord with the principles of international justice, as defined in the Charter of the United Nations and the judgments of the International Court of Justice. 
  1. Non-provocative defence and progressive disarmament could release very large resources for the support of social, educational, and health services, and the relief of poverty and hunger in the Third World. 

We, the signatories, look forward to the emergence of a new consensus on Defence Policy in Britain whereby – whatever the differences in their detailed proposals – all political parties will construct their policies within the framework of the principles of ‘Just Defence,.

Published by ‘Just Defence’: 7 Pound Place, Eltham, London SE9 5DN.  (Address no longer in use)

*

John Bickersteth retired in 1987 to dedicate more time to environmental issues and became involved in the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. He organised the Creation Festival at Salisbury Cathedral in 1990 that championed conservation and waste reduction and campaigned to ban straw-burning by farmers because of carbon emissions and spoke about the issue in the House of Lords. (left, at Glastonbury)

In 2007 he campaigned to banish plastic bags in Tisbury, a Wiltshire village, thought to be the first place in the West to bringing in such a rule to try to reduce plastic waste. Residents agreed to use their own bags when shopping from 1 January 2008. He told BBC News: “The breakthrough came when the Co-op said they’d play ball and I think it’s catching on, although it won’t happen overnight.” He said he wanted to preserve the earth and was delighted to have convinced the traders to help him.

He later joined the protest against the Newbury bypass in the mid-1990s, alongside “Swampy”, who tried to block construction of the trunk road by building tunnels, voicing his disapproval of a project that would lead to the destruction of woodland.

The best memorial which could be given here is to reactivate the undertaking given to him – unwittingly overlooked in recent years.

 

 

 

o


FT reader suggests ‘NATO – just STOP’!

February 4, 2018

 Anti-Russian propaganda escalates

Just one example: there were warnings about “huge” Russian wargames in September, raising alarm among the credulous. A briefing by Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, warned that Russia “has used big military exercises as a disguise or a precursor for aggressive military actions against their neighbours”, citing Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014.  The British Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, said the exercise was “designed to provoke us” and appeared to accept the estimate of 100,000 troops.

But Zapad-17 offered nothing more alarming than footage of Vladimir Putin observing the exercises through binoculars and a report that three people had been injured when a Russian helicopter accidentally fired on spectators.

The numbers forecast as 100,000 were put by all observers at between 10,000 and 17,000. Russia pointed out that their given numbers had been accurate and international borders had been respected.

Is this briefing done to strengthen the case for NATO expenditure and expansion?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. When that was dissolved in 1991, NATO decided to expand eastwards, though newly declassified documents confirm that – as Rodric Braithwaite, former British Ambassador to the Soviet Union, recounted in March 5, 1991 – British foreign minister Douglas Hurd and British PM John Major assured the Soviet leader that NATO would not expand eastwards.

Despite this assurance, expansion continued, with Albania, Croatia, Montenegro as the latest recruits. Roger Boyes, Berlin correspondent to The Times, warns that NATO’s expansion eastward needlessly provokes Russia and must stop growing if it wants to survive. Sardonically, Small People Against Big Government published this map:

He sees Turkey’s plans to buy a Russian-made S-400 missile defence system that cannot be integrated into NATO’s radar network – and the consequent training of Turks by Russia – as a serious problem for the alliance. Boyes believes that the Turkish president should observe its membership conditions or leave the alliance, losing nuclear weapons from the Incirlik base, new F-35 jets, training of Turkish soldiers and intelligence sharing.

Take seriously Putin’s fear of encirclement and end the process of NATO enlargement

Boyes concludes: “The correct response to Putin, then, is a paradoxical one. It doesn’t mean shelving rigorous sanctions policies against Putin, and it doesn’t mean we should recognise his illegal annexation of Crimea.  It is to take seriously his fear of encirclement and end the process of Nato enlargement . . . to stay credible a defence alliance has to live within its means, stay alert and regain the will to act. That has to be better than the present enfeebled ambiguity”.

Dr Harlan Ullman, described as the principal creator of “shock and awe”, fears that Vladimir Putin is turning this concept against NATO and “understands well how to rattle us” but adds that “Mr Putin has no intent of starting a war or invading any NATO member”.

In the Financial Times he deplores “relatively tiny deployments of military forces to central and eastern Europe that will still not be complete for months” adding that “While these token forces may reassure Nato allies, it is unlikely that Mr Putin is impressed”.

He prescribes a variant of shock and awe to defend ”the easternmost allies”: providing large numbers of anti-aircraft and anti-armoured-vehicle shoulder-fired missiles and local forces that would make any incursion very costly. Ullman also believes that assigning a US or UK Trident or French ballistic missile submarine to NATO would be a significant signal, as Russia has a ‘shorter-range nuclear numerical advantage’.

Though both conclude that Russia has no aggressive intentions towards NATO they could go further and heed the advice of an FT reader to STOP:How about just stopping to provoke the Russians? Stop your ‘colour’ revolutions in Russia’s backyard, stop trying to roll NATO’s (Washington’s occupation forces for Europe) tanks on Russia’s doorstep and stop any economic warfare”.

 

 

 

o