What does Gothenburg have to do with Chiang Mai ? What does arms trade have to do with the Church?

Does this whole discussion on faith -based advocacy for disarmament have any relevance for member churches of the Christian conference of Asia? In the subtitle of the helpful primer, The Gothenburg Process by Peter Brune, he makes the claim that, In the end it is the most marginalized people, often in the global south, that pay the price for the madness of vast amounts of armaments in the world.1 The Gothenburg Process as it is known today originated from an initiative in 2001 by three Swedish ecumenical institutions, the Christian Council of Sweden, the Swedish Mission Council and the Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation, later the Life and Peace Institute joined them. The primary focus was to highlight the growing transfers of military equipment, especially in the global South. From an Asian perspective through the partnership with the Christian Conference of Asia, in a declaration adopted at the Gothenburg consultation for Asia in Chiang Mai 2008, the participants there moved, to organize a Chiang Mai process inspired by the Gothenburg process to begin albeit in a small steps to address the complex issues of conventional and small arms proliferation in Asia. 2 It is very possible for one who has participated in any of the consultations which most recently was Gothenburg IV in London, to feel a sense of powerlessness and inadequacy. Even with a coalition of like-minded and committed NGOs and faith communities, the problem appears to be too large and complicated for any one or two groups to solve. Furthermore, especially for those of us in Asia, we might only see a uphill challenge from the moment our eyes our opened to see the violent madness resulting from irresponsible arms trading. And yet, faith-based advocacy brings the needed dimension of a mustard seed like faith which we believe can even move the mountains of an issue like arms trade. This kind of faith is needs to be colla borative, inspirational and theological. The different actors in the arms trade are named, and thus it helps to clarify our roles and our point of engagement. They are: a. the producers (the arms industry) b. the users (mainly the armed forces in the recipient countries) c. the controllers (mainly the control authorities on the national and regional levels). d. The critical civil society (in the Gothenburg process this comprises, in a simplified sense, mainly churches, ecumenical and interfaith institutions). At Gothenburg IV, the conference became a safe space for representatives of the different actors above to be in mutual consultation and even critique. It was heartening to see variety of Christian representatives across traditions
1

2Brune,

Peter Brune, The Gothenburg Process (Uppsala: Life & Peace Institute), 2009. The Gothenburg Process, 82.

Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox giving theological, ethical and practical contributions. But it was also deeply significant to see a model where those in the industry such as Rolls Royce, and in government are brought to be in the same space with faith-based NGOs as well as secular NGOs . Not to forget the participation of Religions for Peace brought a much needed interfaith collaborative dimension into the consultation. So while some of the discussion might have often been technical and complicated, it was always grounded back into real settings where people on the ground are affected. A particular highlight for me personally was to listen to the passionate and inspiring presentation from Father Nithiya (FABC) and Sister Mariola from the National commission for Justice, Peace and Development share stories on how women and the poor are empowered to confront the issue of arms trade with their Right to Food Campaign. The energy in the room was electrifying after Father Nithiya and Sister Mariola shared. It was for some an enlightening moment to see in practical form from our Indian presenters the connection between the issue of arms trade with the concerns arising out of poverty. While it is true that after an initial awareness on arms trade, when we want to move into advocacy and action, the frustrations will come as part and parcel of our work, we must not forget to celebrate every small victory. They are signs of the greater good we could achieve in the future. Besides the needed inspiration which is needed to get people started, as well as keep our efforts sustainable at the heart level, Gothenburg IV did not sidestep the hard truths of confronting corruption at all levels. The dimension of dealing with those in power with specific political interests and self-interest was glaringly on the agenda. So with the context stripped of any illusion of simplistic solutions, what the Gothenburg process provides is a modest attempt to remind the Christian community that we can play a role not just on our own but also with others at a local, regional and global level. We are also challenged to provide further theological input to enable churches to have a basic framework at least do something in whatever situation they are in relation to arms trade. Archbishop emeritus KG Hammer in his self-critical afterword entitled, Does God want us to produce and trade arms ? comments that we need: A theology that is not primarily designed to support Christian nation building or church imperial extension but to explore ways of life that reflect following Christ in the world today must focus on trust building, development of a culture of peace, non -violent conflict transformation and courageous vulnerability. Such a theology will find strong foundations in the life of Jesus, his preaching and priorities, and a nonviolent interpretation of his death on the cross. Such an interpretation is not primarily centred around how to change the mind of God but on how God s

unchanging love can change our lives, priorities and ways of thinking. 3 The Chiang Mai process mentioned earlier is our attempt to begin to wrestle with what the kind of theology and initiatives we advocate means in the Asian context with regards to the ongoing ministry of peace and reconciliation in general. But also in relation to an issue as specific as conventional and small arms proliferation in Asia. The declaration in 2008 was merely a first step, now the question to us is where do we go from here? How can we in our respective faith communities (or through the support of the Christian conference of Asia) join forces with other like-minded groups in Asia such as Pax Christi, FABC and National Commission of Justice, Peace & Development (India) to take it one step further? In what ways can we collaborate with our partners in the Global North from the original Gothenburg Process as well as others towards a long term solutions? It is not uncommon to end a consultation such as Gothenburg IV 2010 with more questions than answers. But these questions, we pray will put us on a quest to find answers which often will be seen in our join projects or efforts in bringing the relevance of our faith into the concerns arising from our given context. Not doing anything at all is too high price to pay, not just for today, but also for tomorrow.

3The

Gothenburg Process, 54-55.