A UNIVERSAL MORAL COMMUNITY

Douglas Roche, O.C.

A former Canadian Member of Parliament and Ambassador for Disarmament, Douglas Rochechairs the Millennium Council of Canada. His most recent books are An Unacceptable Risk:Nuclear Weapons in a Volatile World and, with Robert Muller, Safe Passage Into the 21stCentury.

The drafters of the UN Charter held out a vision of one world in which all people areneighbors. Though the world has developed, technologically speaking, into a globalcommunity, the full implementation of the Charter principles has yet to occur. Thereinlies the crux of the moral challenge humanity faces today.

Through the United Nations and its systems, we possess, for the first time in thehistory of the world, a catalogue of information about how our planet works, and treatiesto protect the rights of individuals and the environment itself. Both people andgovernments are learning that they must cooperate for many purposes: to maintain peace andorder, expand economic activity, tackle pollution, halt or minimize climate change, combatdisease, curb the proliferation of weapons, prevent desertification, preserve genetic andspecies diversity, deter terrorists, ward off famines, and so on.

All this has prepared us for the formulation of a new global ethic, which canessentially be expressed as a new attitude of discharging our responsibilities for caringfor one another and for the earth. Every day, newscasts bring further evidence ofhumankind's wrenching away from the bipolar world of the cold war. The path forward isunclear, cluttered as it is with regional and ethnic conflict, poverty gaps, and hugemigrations of peoples. Yet the advance toward globalization, led by the spectacularprogress of technologies, is unmistakable.

It is now urgent to develop a vision of the world as a community. The old nationalismsare incapable of producing true human security in a world now interdependent in everymajor aspect of life. A new form of management of the planet, based first of all oncooperation, is essential. Such cooperation can open the way to the discovery of commonvalues of East and West, North and South in the joint search for enduring peace. Theexpression of a new global ethic of sharing and stewardship might seem, to some, overlyambitious in a world still torn by the effects of long histories of greed and dominance.Yet agreement on common values for common survival is the most pressing challenge facingthe international community.

The Essential Obstacle to Peace

The paramount moral issue of our time, and the essential obstacle to peace in theworld, is the present impasse between the nuclear-weapons States (NWS) and their allies,and the non-nuclear weapons States (NNWS) centered in the nonaligned movement, onnegotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons.

On May 2, 1993, a meeting in New Delhi of prominent world figures launching the RajivGandhi Memorial Initiative declared:

Nuclear weapons pose the greatest threat to human civilization and to humankind'ssurvival. Their elimination is, therefore, the first prerequisite for the advancement ofhuman civilization.

Nuclear weapons threaten the continuation of God's planet; they contradict everythingthe United Nations stands for. This issue has for too long cried out for moral leadership.Now a new moment has arrived in which a synthesis of values can be identified.

From a strategic viewpoint, the case for elimination of nuclear weapons is based onthese major arguments: the uselessness of nuclear weapons, the risk of accident andterrorism, the repercussions of the disparity among nuclear haves and have-nots.

w Nuclear weapons are either powerless to address or in some cases simplyexacerbate the most prevalent threats to national security in today's world, includingterrorism, ethnic conflicts, state disintegration, humanitarian disasters, and economiccrises. The destructiveness of nuclear weapons is so great that they have no militaryutility against a comparably equipped opponent, other than the belief that they deternuclear weapons.

w The possible acquisition by terrorist groups of nuclear weapons or material isa growing threat to the international community. Although many of the world's cities haverecently experienced the horrors of terrorism, the damage they have suffered is minusculecompared to what may lie ahead. The destructive force of even a crude nuclear weapondesigned by terrorists would be incalculably greater than the fertilizer bomb thatdevastated the US Federal Building in Oklahoma City. But retaliation with a nuclear bombwould be a senseless act. The nuclear powers justify their possession as a deterrentagainst nuclear blackmail by rogue states; yet, paradoxically, the very fact that somenations are permitted to stockpile nuclear weapons is a stimulus for proliferation andhastens the day when terrorism will go nuclear.

w The possession of nuclear weapons by some states stimulates other nations toacquire them, reducing the security of all. It is untenable for the five permanent,veto-wielding members of the Security Council to maintain nuclear weapons, even at reducedlevels, while proscribing their acquisition to all other countries. Even a permanentcondition of minimum deterrence is not desirable because, as we have recently seen in thecases of India and Pakistan, sooner or later other states will seek the power and statusconferred by nuclear weapons. Why should nuclear weapons be necessary for US security, andnot for the security of other states? Indeed, the smaller states could argue that theyhave a greater need for the equalizing power of nuclear warheads. The argument thatnuclear weapons should be retained because they deter conventional wars is false.Conventional wars persist despite the possession of nuclear weapons by involved NWS. Also,if the argument were true, it would act as an incentive for virtually every country toacquire its own nuclear weapons. Proliferation would run amuck.

The argument that nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented ("the genie cannot be putback in the bottle") is discounted by the present treaties banning the production ofchemical and biological weapons, which cannot be disinvented. The "bottle" canindeed be contained by stringent verification to confirm destruction of current stockpilesand to control the means of production. Such a verification regime is technically possibleand would become politically viable in a world which was already partially demilitarizedthrough minimum deterrence, advances in conventional disarmament, and internationalbarriers to the arms trade. The reduction in the number of authoritarian regimes throughthe spread of democracy would also be a new global security anchor.

While the strategic arguments against nuclear weapons I have cited above are compellingin their own right, I do not believe they will by themselves convince the NWS to make anunequivocal commitment to abolition. Rather, we must concentrate on the pre-eminent factthat nuclear weapons contravene humanitarian law, which has been accepted through thecenturies as the only basis for civilization to endure. Here the legal and moral argumentsagainst nuclear weapons intertwine with the strategic: since nuclear weapons can destroyall life on the planet, they imperil all that humanity ever stood for, and humanityitself. This is why the president of the World Court, Mohammed Bedjaoui of Algeria, callednuclear weapons "the ultimate evil." In fact, he added, the existence of nuclearweapons challenges "the very existence of humanitarian law." During theacrimonious years of the cold war, with the emphasis on the military doctrine of nucleardeterrence as a constant justification for the nuclear arms buildup, the public seemedblinded to the horror of what nuclear weapons were all about. But now, in the post-coldwar era characterized by an East-West partnership, there is no excuse for shieldingourselves from the assault on life itself that nuclear weapons represent.

It is necessary to state -- again and again if necessary -- what nuclear weapons do.They are not just an advanced form of ordinary weaponry. They have the power to decimatethe natural environment which has sustained humanity from the beginning of time. In aseparate opinion attached to the World Court decision, judge Christopher GregoryWeeramantry of Sri Lanka holds that the use of such weapons is unlawful in allcircumstances, without exception, because nuclear weapons:

w cause death and destruction; produce lethal levels of heat and blast; produceradiation and radioactive fall-out; produce a disruptive electromagnetic pulse;

w induce cancers, leukemia, keloids and related afflictions; causegastrointestinal, cardiovascular and related afflictions; cause congenital deformities,mental retardation, and genetic damage; produce psychological stress and fear syndromes;continue to induce health-related problems for decades after their use;

w produce social disintegration; wreak cultural devastation; exterminatecivilian populations; damage neighboring states;

wChania luxury hotels imperil the ecosystem; contaminate and destroy the food chain; carry thepotential to cause a nuclear winter; damage the environmental rights of futuregenerations;

w imperil all civilization; threaten human survival; threaten all life on theplanet.

This is a staggering compilation of damage that no amount of military obfuscation, suchas referring to "unintended collateral damage," can cover up. The words of theUN General Assembly, in its "Declaration on the Prevention of NuclearCatastrophe" (1981), aptly summarize the entirety of the foregoing facts:

All the horrors of past wars and other calamities that have befallen people would palein comparison with what is inherent in the use of nuclear weapons, capable of destroyingcivilization on earth.

Humanitarian law is built on the religious and philosophical ideas reaching backthousands of years through many civilizations -- Chinese, Indian, Greek, Roman, Japanese,Islamic, Modern European, among others. These ideas reflected the effort of the humanconscience to mitigate in some measure the brutalities and dreadful sufferings of war.

Humanitarian law prohibits unnecessary suffering, limits damage to no more thannecessary to secure a military objective, discriminates between combatants andnoncombatants, respects the territorial sovereignty of nonbelligerent States, prohibitsgenocide, and bans lasting damage to the environment. In short, humanitarian law prohibitsweapons which cause unlimited damage to people. This body of general principles is foundin the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, apart from numerous otherconventions on such matters as chemical and bacteriological weapons. As Judge Weeramantryobserves: the effects of the nuclear weapon and the humanitarian principles of the laws ofwar are a contradiction in terms.

Humanitarian law is in essence moral law. Morality cannot tolerate human obliteration.It is argued by nuclear retentionists that nuclear weapons are needed to contain the"evil" in the world manifesting itself in tyrants (e.g. Hitler, Saddam Hussein).But how can it be moral to use "the ultimate evil" to counter a partial evil? Itis the enforcement of international law, with its requisite verification regime, that isneeded to counter evil -- not the destruction of humanity.

A United Christian Voice?

The importance of religion in expressing a moral condemnation of that which woulddestroy God's creation is self-evident.

Vatican Council II taught: "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at thedestruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their population is a crimeagainst God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation."(Para. 80, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World). Though theyelaborated their concern that a universal public authority be put in place to outlaw war,the Fathers of Vatican II rather grudgingly accept the strategy of nuclear deterrence. Theaccumulation of arms, they said, "serves as a deterrent to possible enemyattack." Thus "peace of a sort" is maintained, though the balance resultingfrom the arms race threatens to lead to war, not eliminate it. The Catholic position onnuclear deterrence was restated by Pope John Paul II in a message to the UN Second SpecialSession on Disarmament in 1982:

In current conditions, "deterrence" based on balance, certainly not as an endin itself but as a step on the way towards a progressive disarmament, may still be judgedmorally acceptable. Nonetheless, in order to ensure peace, it is indispensable not to besatisfied with the minimum which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion.

In this statement, it is readily seen that deterrence, in order to be acceptable, mustlead to disarmament measures. Consequently, deterrence as a single, permanent policy isnot acceptable. The American Bishops' Pastoral Letter on War and Peace, publishedin 1983, took up this theme. Though expressing a strong "no" to nuclear war,declaring that a nuclear response to a conventional attack is "morallyunjustifiable," and expressing skepticism that any nuclear war could avoid themassive killing of civilians, the bishops gave a "strictly conditioned moralacceptance of nuclear deterrence."

In a five-year follow-up to their letter, the bishops set out criteria to be met inorder to continue this morally justifiable basis for deterrence. For example, the bishopssaid that in order to be acceptable, nuclear deterrence could not be based on the directtargeting of urban populations. But starting with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, policy-makershave never excluded the targeting of cities. To destroy the war-making capability of acountry, the attack cannot exclude the country's valued economic assets, which are locatedin the industrial-urban complexes. Also, the bishops opposed weapons combining size,accuracy, and multiple warheads in a credible first-strike posture. Actually, new weaponsnow being tested and deployed are enhancing, not lessening, first-strike capability; themodernization process is not just to be able to retaliate against the opponent's strikebut to increase the ability to strike first if the need arises.

The World Council of Churches, at its Sixth Assembly in Vancouver in 1983, took anunequivocal stand:

The concept of deterrence, the credibility of which depends on the possible use ofnuclear weapons, is to be rejected as morally unacceptable and as incapable ofsafeguarding peace and security in the long term. . . . The production and deployment ofnuclear weapons as well as their use constitute a crime against humanity. . ."

The new period of history the world has entered enables fresh insights into thefundamental policies of nuclear deterrence that continue to hold sway. A united Christianvoice, joining with the leaders of other world religions, would be possible if theCatholic Church now recognized that Western governments consider nuclear deterrence nottemporary but a permanent condition, hence no longer qualifying for moral acceptance.

The moral crisis humanity faces in tolerating the continued existence of nuclearweapons was poignantly summed up by George Kennan, the US diplomat who originated thepolicy of containing Soviet Communism:

. . . the readiness to use nuclear weapons against other human beings -- against peoplewe do not know, whom we have never seen, and whose guilt or innocence it is not for us toestablish, and, in doing so, to place in jeopardy the natural structure upon which allcivilization rests, as though the safety and perceived interests of our generation weremore important than everything that has taken place or could take place in civilization:this is nothing less than a presumption , a blasphemy, an indignity -- an indignity ofmonstrous dimensions -- offered to God!

Values for the Global Neighborhood

It is very interesting that the report of the Commission on Global Governance, afterits opening chapter describing the post-cold war world, turned immediately to anelaboration of "Values for the Global Neighborhood."

We believe that all humanity could uphold the core values of respect for life, liberty,justice and equity, mutual respect, caring, and integrity. These provide a foundation fortransforming a global neighborhood based on economic exchange and improved communicationsinto a universal moral community in which people are bound together by more thanproximity, interest, or identity. They all derive in one way or another from theprinciple, which is in accord with religious teachings around the world, that peopleshould treat others as they would themselves wish to be treated.

The Commission urged the international community to unite in support of a global ethicof common rights and shared responsibilities. This would "provide the moralfoundation for constructing a more effective system of global governance" and closethe present gap between governments and citizens. A global civic ethic also requiresdemocratic and accountable institutions and the rule of law. The concept of nationalsovereignty must be enlarged as states realize that there is no longer such a thing as aself-enclosed security system. The virtue of cooperation has become a necessity.

If tragedies are not to be multiplied one hundredfold, concern for the interests of allcitizens, of whatever racial, tribal, religious, or other affiliation, must be high amongthe values informing the conduct of people in the world that has now become aneighborhood. There must be respect for their rights, in particular for their right tolead lives of dignity, to preserve their culture, to share equitably in the fruits ofnational growth, and to play their part in the governance of the country.

Discussion on ethics frequently tend to become esoteric, not to mention divisive. But anew global ethic can be expressed sharply, succinctly and irrefutably, as the 1993Parliament of the World's Religions did:

Every human being must be treated humanely!

The Parliament, made up of representatives of nearly all the world's religions, adopteda statement on the need for a global ethic to advance the intrinsic dignity of the humanperson, the inalienable freedom and equality of all humans, and the necessary solidarityand interdependence of all humans with each other. The ethical consensus reached in theParliament could be affirmed by all religions, despite their dogmatic differences, andcould also be supported by nonbelievers.

A new global ethic requires some humility. It requires an appreciation of diversity, aconcern for justice, tolerance of uncertainty, a capacity for creativity and, mostespecially, world awareness, holistic thinking and a respect for life. "If a newworld order is to exist," Hans Kng, the prominent theologian and ecumenist, says inhis monumental study, ERROR MSGChristianity: Essence, History, and Future, "it needs aminimum of common values, standards and basic attitudes, an ethic which, for all itstime-conditioned nature, is binding in all senses of the word on the whole of the world .. . ." Elsewhere, Kng poses the challenging questions society must take up if weare to escape from the present human crisis:

On the threshold of the third Millennium the cardinal ethical question is raised allthe more urgently. On what basic conditions can we survive, survive as human beings, on ahabitable earth, and give human form to our individual and social life? On whatpresuppositions can human civilization be rescued for the third Millennium? What basicprinciples should be followed by the leading forces in politics, economics, science andthe religions? And on what basis can the individual, too, achieve a happy and fulfilledexistence?

These questions have long been taken up by the best religious thinkers. A wealth ofanalysis and admonition exists in the social teaching of the Catholic Church, particularlythe papal encyclicals of the past century; the statements of the World Council ofChurches; the World Conference on Religion and Peace; the Temple of Understanding, aglobal interfaith association based in New York. All this material underlines the sharingand stewardship necessary for an enduring peace. These are traditional sources ofinspiration.

What is surprising is the number of contemporary analysts calling for an ethicalresponse to the planet's problems. One of the most notable of these was a UN- sponsoredseminar on the ethical and spiritual dimensions of social progress, held as part of thepreparations for the World Summit for Social Development. Convened at Bled, Slovenia, inOctober 1994, the 35 members of the seminar attempted to advance ethical understanding ofpoverty, employment and social integration and "pave the way for a more holisticperception of international cooperation."

The UN, being by definition a place where it is hard to find a common denominator, hascustomarily avoided discussions of spirituality, even though two of itssecretaries-general, Dag Hammarskjld and U Thant, were intensely religious men. But thisspecial seminar took as a working assumption that the spiritual is an integral part ofreality and that compassion, altruism, and generosity have the power to move societiesaway from fear, despair, selfishness, arrogance, and violence. It criticized the"social Darwinism" spreading through the world as the strong, getting stronger,marginalize the weak.

The same Promethean philosophy, deriving from a concept of Man as master of theuniverse, has resulted in extensive damage to the planet and destruction of it wealth. Inaddition to the dangers which this situation presents for the survival of humankind, itdemonstrates a lack of respect for the environment which is related to the various formsof violence afflicting contemporary societies.

Fundamental freedoms and civil and political rights represent basic achievements ofhumanity, "but individual freedom is meaningless and dangerous when not rooted in anethic and enlightened by the Spirit." Human dignity, "the very nature of thehuman being as created by God," must be safeguarded by political action and theexercise of power. Thus a new ethic, based on hope, not fear, should make it possible totranscend the North-South dichotomy. "This moral and spiritual renewal is a matter ofurgency."

It will take more than one seminar on spirituality to turn around political anddiplomatic thinking at the United Nations. But the contribution made by UNESCO inorganizing a meeting on "The Role of Religion in the Promotion of a Culture ofPeace" and the continuing work of the Values Caucus, a group of UN-accredited NGOspromoting ethical and spiritual values as part of international decision-making, shows thewidening support to achieve a moral consensus which would be a catalyst for action.Religiously based NGOs are another factor in this movement. Certainly, religions have aspecial responsibility for this work. A sign of the times is the growing quest for morehuman security, based, if not always so articulated, on the recognition of the mysticalintegrity of humanity.