Nuclear weapons are BAD, aren’t they?

Paul Ingram writes about the need for international dialogue and mediation

Friends have always had strong and clear political messages. How we best engage with the political process is less clear. Do we prioritise communicating our established position with clarity, focusing on our tradition of witnessing, or ‘speaking truth to power’? This is an attractive approach, coming directly from our discernment of truth. It marks us out, ensures our messages are simple and easy to understand, and is great for outreach.

In some respects it is essential in building any kind of effective political movement. And when our discernment is really clear – say, that nuclear weapons are immoral and our country should ditch them as soon as possible – it feels right and consistent. After all, nuclear weapons are bad, right?

The Peace Testimony

I am a Friend who has been prioritising the effort to achieve nuclear disarmament for the last thirty-odd years (for the last sixteen years with BASIC – the British American Security Information Council), from breaking into nuclear bases in my early years to more recent talks with global leaders; and, increasingly, I have become suspicious of a ‘purist’ approach to the problem. This is not only because I believe it is less than effective, but also because it goes against our discernment regarding the Peace Testimony and inclusion.

Let’s start with effectiveness. I used to teach senior civil servants ‘systems thinking’ as part of their leadership development. My simple message was: when tackling complexity, see the bigger picture and include all perspectives in the process. I used to say that the best way to persuade someone to work alongside you was to shut up and listen to them, develop a clear understanding with them of what their perspective was, and then explore it further.

Knowing I was a politician, one person came up to me and said how valuable he thought our teaching was to running major government departments. But he then expressed curiosity about how I applied this approach to political situations. I knew in that instant that I had been teaching the stuff I most needed to learn myself. I set about transforming my approach from one based upon clear positions and traditional advocacy to one based upon building relationships and understanding.

The Trident Commission

I set up the Trident Commission and populated it with people I disagreed with, nine members of the British establishment, to explore British nuclear weapons policy. After over three years of deliberation, increasing trust and respect, I published a report that stuck with Trident, but highlighted the critical need for the UK to do better in promoting global nuclear disarmament. That report has opened doors and steered BASIC’s work into areas of achievable reform in nuclear weapons policy. We take officials’ intent to achieve security at face value, and work with them to find improvement.

Recently I was at the United Nations in New York by the invitation of the German government to propose a new international norm whereby all nuclear armed states would promise never to threaten nuclear attack on states without nuclear weapons. This is not only achievable, but could help to stabilise the current fears in Japan and South Korea. And there are useful benefits in such an approach for North Korea too – something I was talking about with senior North Koreans in Moscow last month.

Iran

Whilst the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons could certainly help in articulating the need for progress, nuclear disarmament will not be achieved by bashing the nuclear armed states over the head with a legal instrument. They have to be coaxed into recognising that nuclear weapons do not serve their security interests.

But what about my extraordinary claim that an inflexible approach to nuclear weapons goes against our Peace Testimony? During the so-called Iran nuclear crisis from 2003-2013 the peace movement was calling for talks and understanding with Iran. I was involved in direct and sometimes secret talks involving the Iranians, and visited Tehran on a number of occasions.

I felt clear that whilst, personally, I thought it would be better if Iran were not to engage in nuclear fuel cycle activities, and said so to Iranians, I also believed they had every right to do so, if under safeguards.

Their position, one of challenging the unfairness of the situation, had some merit, even if their approach was sometimes threatening and counterproductive. I often found myself explaining the Iranian perspective at meetings in Whitehall, whilst being clear that I did not necessarily agree with it. By developing empathy for and sympathy with their views and the basis for them, we were building the bridges that would contribute to the nuclear agreement that president Donald Trump now loves to hate.

Dialogue and mediation

As Friends, we understand the need for international dialogue and mediation. So, why is it that we seem so uncomfortable accommodating those we disagree with closer to home? Articulating our truth in a manner that communicates inflexibility deepens divides between us and makes the political conflict more inevitable. That’s not peace.

We are challenged to discern, articulate and engage with others in a continual exploration of complexity. It demands of us humility and understanding, with an emphasis on building open relationships. It also demands of us that whilst we articulate our truth, we do so knowing that it is dynamic, and can change. After all, if we are not willing to be open to change, how can we expect those we dialogue with to be open?

Paul is executive director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC).

---

Comments

Please login to add a comment