January / February 2002
AMERICA'S AFGHAN AGENDA
--By Jane Howarth
The awesome arsenal of horror weapons being unloaded over Afghanistan in the
name of international terrorism is part one of the real agenda, replacing the
Taliban with a pro-US government. But the real agenda goes much further and the
planning began before the Cold War ended. American involvement in the region
began over two decades ago when the CIA began covertly intervening in the
Central Asian states of the Soviet Union.
America's involvement in the region, at first, was part of a policy to
"roll back the Soviet Union and extend US power and influence in the area
under Soviet control. Through the 60's to the end of the 80's the US waged a
covert war in the Soviet block nations and in the Soviet Union itself. The CIA
and the Council On Foreign Relations spread their agents throughout the region
to foment dissent and try to destabilise the Soviets.
The US, and its Western allies, interest was in business and trade. American and
Western corporations wanted to invest in, and have access to markets in these
countries. They also wanted a stake in the resource of these countries, barred
to them since the end of WWII. Successive US administrations poured money and
resources into the "roll back" endeavour, which peaked during the
Reagan era when, as George Bush snr said, three trillion dollars went to bring
down the Soviet Union by bankrupting its economy.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter, in a book
published in 1997, wrote: "For America the chief geopolitical prize is
Eurasia. Most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its
enterprises and underneath its soil".
During Carter's Presidency US intervention in the Soviet-backed government in
Afghanistan and the Central Asian regions became priority policy. Brzezinski, a
rabid anti-Communist, was instrumental in creating conditions that prompted the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In December 1979, four days after the Soviet
invasion, Carter signed a secret covert action directive to supply
"lethal" weapons to Afghan resistance fighters. But six months prior
to this, on Brzezinski's advice, Carter had signed another secret directive
authorising the supply of aid to harass Soviet occupation forces. Even before
then Brzezinski had been organising covert aid into Afghanistan via Pakistan and
the CIA. Moscow was aware that the CIA was stirring up tribal revolts in
Afghanistan during 1978-79. General Valentin Varennikov, one of those who took
the decision to invade, said: "the threat to the Soviet Union was not
"from" Afghanistan. It was from the US via its overwhelming influence
in the region".
In 1998 Brzezinski, in an interview for a French magazine, said "We didn't
push the Russians to intervene, but we consciously increased the probability
that they would do so. This secret operation was an excellent idea. Its effect
was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap. You want me to regret that"?
At stake now, and the basis of US present policy, is Caspian Sea Oil, oil and
gas from the states which border the Caspian sea, the routes with pipelines that
carry the oil and gas to markets will take and an Afghan government ready to
accommodate US interests. Of equal importance is access to the valuable mineral
resources of the Central Asian Republics, and access to military bases near the
borders of Russia and China. To this can be added the continued
"containment" of Iran. Afghanistan is so strategically placed, it's
importance in all this is obvious. The problem is that Afghanistan has been at
war for 22 years and does not have a pro-US government.
After the break-up of the Soviet Union, America scrambled to control the oil and
gas of the Caspian Sea region. The Caspian Sea is landlocked. Before 1991 it was
bordered on the east, west and north by the Soviet Union and Iran in the
Southern border. Under the sea are believed to be huge oil and gas deposits. The
US sees it as another Persian Gulf. US policy in the region has been a mix of
intrigue and back door dealing. Until now America had been trying to isolate or
sideline Russia. But September 11 may have changed this.
The newly independent Central Asian Republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan which now, with Iran, ring the Caspian have huge oil and gas reserves
within their territory. But these states are still largely dependent on Russia
and Russia sees it as in its interests to perpetuate this. In the past decade
America has sought to loosen the republics' ties to Russia and to end Russia's
domination of Caspian oil. America also wants to keep Iran out of Caspian oil
development.
The US assiduously courted the independent states. President Clinton invited
their leaders to the White House. The US Department of Energy published
estimates of the Caspian's oil reserves. The Central Asian states, seeing a way
to bring investment and wealth to their impoverished economies, entered into
joint ventures or development agreements with Western oil companies. The US
urged the oil industry to build the new pipelines that would be needed to
transport the region's oil and gas to western markets via routes that would
bypass Russia and Iran. But oil companies and the littoral states have had
difficulty agreeing on the routes for new lines.
For several years US and Russian oil companies have been duelling in the region
as Russia strives to keep some control over resources. An association of US and
Western oil monopolies as BP-Amoco and Exon now control over 50% of the
investment in the Caspian.
Iran and Russia have close ties which include trade and technology. Russia has
assisted Iran's development of a nuclear power plant. They have a mutual
interest in preventing increased American influence in the Caspian region. In
late 1999 these two states objected to the construction and use of Trans-Caspian
oil pipelines "until all coastal states reached mutual agreements on the
legal status of the Caspian Sea". And both expressed concern that documents
relating to pipeline construction had been signed without reference to them.
The reference to the legal status of the Caspian Sea relates to a dispute which
has arisen as to whether the Caspian is a sea or a lake. If defined as a sea the
Law of the Sea prevails and the Caspian would be split into five national
sectors. Russia and Iran hold that is a lake with common resources. The five
countries are negotiating on this issue.
Turkey
Another player in the game is Turkey. Since the demise of the Soviet Union the
US has promoted Turkey as the "good guy" as opposed to Iran the
"bad guy". The US wanted the independent Asian states to establish
links with Turkey, a long time ally of America, rather than Iran. Turkey and
Iran were both angling for influence with offers of development and aid to the
Central Asian Republics.
Turkey wants to extend its influence in this largely Turkmen area of Central
Asia. Turkey also wants to reduce its independence on Russian energy supplies
and to bring the Caspian oil to its Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. This is, or
was, America's preferred option. The plan was to build a pipeline which would
carry the oil via Azerbaijan and Georgia to Ceyhan. This route would be longer
and cost far more (estimates vary from 2?4 billion) than if it went through
Iran, the oil companies' preferred route. Russia wanted the lines to pass
through its territory and link with existing pipelines.
In November 1999 Clinton visited Turkey and signed an agreement to build the
pipeline. Since then the oil companies have backed away. They see the costs as
prohibitive and other issues have intervened. Some Western consortiums have
doubts about how much oil there really is beneath the Caspian Sea.
Afghanistan
The hidden player in the game is Afghanistan. Afghanistan offers the shortest
route from the oil and gas areas of Central Asia. The pipeline would run through
Afghanistan to Pakistan, where it would connect with the gas grid at Sui, and on
to the Arabian seaport of Gwadar. This is an added incentive for General Pervez
Musharraf to throw in his lot with America. Nations along the pipeline's route
see benefits for the economies. So it is not difficult to imagine what Musharraf
was promised on this, in return for his aid in the conquest of Afghanistan.
Though the best and most viable route is through Afghanistan there is a major
difficulty. Afghanistan has been at war for 22 years and previous attempts by
the US to set up a client government have failed.
After the Soviets withdrew the US continued to fund the various Afghan factions
as they fought for control of the country. Disparate ethnic factions under war
lords, Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Usbek, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a Pushtun, Ahmed Shah
Massoud, Atajik, and others, murdered, looted and raped as they destroyed what
was left. In Kabul alone 50,000 were killed. The CIA still argues that it was
right to fund the internecine war. The idea being that one faction would win,
take control and bring stability, which the US needed in order to run its
pipeline through. And, important for Washington, avoid Russia and Iran.
In 1995 a consortium led by a US oil company, UNOCAL, wrested a contract to
exploit Turkmenistan's oil from an Argentine co. As US policy opposed pipelines
through Russia and Iran UNOCAL needed an agreement with Afghanistan. The Taliban
had entered the war and were making progress against the others. So UNOCAL
banked on the Taliban taking control.
The Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996. UNOCAL welcomed that as a
"positive development". Many in the Congress lauded the Taliban and
the State Department announced it would establish diplomatic relations with the
Taliban by sending an official to Kabul. The Taliban were Afghans from the
Pushtun tribes, many were orphans from the Russian war who had grown up in
Pakistan and been educated in the religious schools there. They were promoted
and sponsored by Pakistan with money from Saudi Arabia and later from the CIA.
They returned to Afghanistan to end the civil war. But the Americans were over
optimistic, the war continued and UNOCAL after 18 months, had not reached an
agreement with the Taliban.
The prospects for UNOCAL's pipeline evaporated after Clinton launched cruise
missiles into Afghanistan in August 1998. In December UNOCAL suspended the
project, saying: "UNOCAL will only participate in construction of the
proposed Central Asia Gas Pipeline when and if Afghanistan achieves the peace
and stability necessary to obtain financing from international lending agencies
for this project and an established government is recognised by the United
Nations and the United States". The extraordinary part of all this is that
since September 11, recognition, if little else, may become a reality.
With Putin and George W. in bed together much has changed. Russia raised no
objections to the use, by the US, of bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Until
now Russia has strongly opposed any long-term presence of US troops in an area
it sees as its backyard. This raises several questions: what has Russia been
promised in relation to the oil and gas and the pipelines? Has a deal to share
the spoils been agreed and if so, how will it affect Iran? And if things don't
go as planned, will the troops remain? If they do, the US will have achieved a
strategic goal that would have been unthinkable before. And why are more and
more troops heading for Afghanistan if, as they say, the Taliban has been
defeated? Is this the build-up of an occupation force?
British troops have taken over Baghram airport. French and German troops are on
the way. Downer is talking about "a small number of extra troops and all
are said to be there to aid the humanitarian effort. But why are the military,
and special forces at that, engaging in the humanitarian mission? Why is this
not left in the UN and the aid agencies who are well versed in such tasks.
As representatives of various world bodies head for Afghanistan to discuss the
formation of a "broad based" government it seems that little thought
has been given to how the Northern Alliance, and others, who may not wish to see
outsiders meddling in their affairs, will be dealt with. Various commanders have
made it plain that they do not want foreigners influencing the course of events.
Since the USSR left, Russia, the US, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and India have
meddled in Afghanistan's affairs. The USSR returned soon after its troops
retreated as part of its attempt to counter increased US involvement.
The returning war lords eager to secure their own interests are unlikely to
welcome outsiders dictating the terms. It is possible that the next stage could
see the US and its "allies" bombing, or at least threatening, their
"friends" in the Northern Alliance. Background to the War
The US in 1996 formed and trained a Central Asian Battalion made up of troops
from Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzata. The Central Asian Republics have all
(urged by the US) joined NATO's Partnership For Peace, a US invention designed
to "contain" Russia and weaken its control in the region. In 1997 the
US 82nd Airborne Division parachuted into Kazakhstan, after flying non-stop from
its base in South Carolina, to demonstrate the strategic capabilities of the US.
When the troops landed, Katherine Kelleher, then deputy assistant secretary of
defense, said "The US interest in Central Asia has much to do with vast oil
and natural gas fields that, by 2010 will make the region the world's third
largest producer of petroleum products".
In 1998 troops from the US 10th Mountain Division were developed in Kyrgzatan
after a similar exercise. Soldiers from this unit were the first to be sent to
the region in the present war. They, it seems, were involved in the well
publicized "successful" incursion into the compound of Mulla Omar
where they were said to have gathered "intelligence". The raid was
anything but successful. They were shot up, with several wounded, one losing a
foot.
It now appears that US special forces, and the CIA, have been in Uzbekistan for
at least six years. A cosy affair between Washington and Uzbekistan began in
1995. Dello Hero in Middle East International Mova writes: "In 1995 the
pentagon began admitting Uzbek officers to its military academies - 35 Uzbeks
have since then graduated from these colleges - and in 1996 US troops
participated in joint military exercises in Uzbekistan".
On October 14 a spokesman for Uzbekistan's president, Islam Karimov, told the
Washington Post that the US and Uzbekistan had been conducting covert
anti-Taliban operations since mid-2000 and the Pentagon and Uzbekistan had been
cooperating for "two or three years".
In 1998 the US as part of an intensified effort to kill Bin Laden sent teams of
marines to train Uzbek soldiers in marksmanship and map reading. Since then
Uzbek and US hit squads made raids into Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden. This
year extra weight was added when a team of US Navy Seals was sent to Uzbekistan.
Six days after the September 11 attack, US Hercules transport planes carrying
surveillance equipment and military personnel landed at a military base in
Uzbekistan on their way to the border of Afghanistan. Soon after 2000 troops,
strike aircraft, helicopters and transport planes followed. The US was given
control of an air base 160km from the Afghan border. F 15's are flying from here
to strike targets in Afghanistan.
US Defense Secretary, Rumsfeld went twice to Uzbekistan in a month after
September 11. Prior to the second visit on November 4 a plan by the US and UK to
set up a forward base inside Afghanistan was revealed by the British press. US,
UK and Northern Alliance troops would be developed here and given heavy air
support to attack the Taliban.
The Clinton administration established links with other members of the Northern
Alliance in 1998, notably the Tajik warlord Ahmad Shah Masoud who allowed US
National Security Agency personnel into his headquarters in the Panjshir Valley
to track, and listen to, all telephone calls in Afghanistan.
Links between the US and the Northern Alliance go back at least three years. All
this puts a different complexion on the present situation in Afghanistan. To
date the Northern Alliance has been presented as an anti-Taliban alliance
"backed by Russia, Iran and India". But, as is now evident, America,
its military and the CIA, turned the Northern Alliance into a proxy army during
several years of readying , and planning, for the present war.
Add to this a fascinating article in Counter Punch (Oct. 15-3 1): It begins:
"Long before September 11 riveted the world's attention on Afghanistan
powerful interests in the US, notably the oil industry, had been promoting a
new, aggressive strategy towards the Taliban". The article goes on to
report on a 1999 white paper, "US Policy on Afghanistan. Challenges and
Solutions".
The author of the paper, a past chief consultant to UNOCAL, who served in the
administration of Bush snr, is now with Bush II's team. His paper argues that
Afghanistan occupies a vital geo-strategic position, can serve as an important
trade link between Central and South Asia and play a major role in the energy
market. It says: Instead Afghanistan has proven an obstacle to the development
of the region, as outside investors fear the strife that emanates from
Afghanistan".
Counter Punch also records that before September 11 Pakistan's press reported
that the Bush White House planned to crush the Taliban "Rogue State".
It is worth nothing that in the Bush hierarchy many are connected to the oil
industry including the President, Vice President and Condoleezza Rice (Chevron),
the National Security Advisor. Oil and oil Co. business is thus a major part of
the Bush policy strategy.
Oil Pipeline
In a highly interesting book, "Masters Of The Universe? NATO's Balkan
Crusade", some of the writers who criticized NATO's war against Yugoslavia
in 1999, claim that Western powers intervened to secure the area as an
alternative route for an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea. The claim was
derided at first. But on August 31 a us-led consortium spokesman said the
construction of an oil pipeline across the Balkans to Viore on Albania's
Adriatic coast would begin. A paper published by the US Trade and Development
Agency notes it will "provide a consistent source of crude oil to American
refineries". Harold Pinter, in an essay in the above book quotes Bill
Richardson, then US energy secretary, "This is about America's energy
security ... we've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian and
it's very important to us that both the pipeline and the politics come out
right". The Trans-Balkans pipeline consortium (AMBO) has as its CEO a
former Director of a division of Halliburton where Vice President Cheney went as
CEO, after Bush snr. lost office.
The accumulated facts give the lie to any talk of the war being simply a
response to September 11. This American war against Afghanistan has become an
American invasion of Afghanistan. America is not interested in aid or
reconstruction. America is in Afghanistan to serve its own interests and that
includes destroying the Taliban.
The United Nation's role in this one sided war should be condemned. The UN
should be ashamed, it allowed the use of cluster bombs without a murmur of
protest. Now that the US has, belatedly and cynically, paid its debt to the UN
the UN has been bought and paid for. How would you like to buy a new Argentinean nuclear reactor? (back
to top)
For the past seven months the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety
Agency (ARPANSA) has been grappling with an application from ANTSO for a license
to construct a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. The successful
tenderer, INVAP, and ANSTO provided documents that weighed several kilos but
which were lightweight in several important areas.
At a Sydney public hearing held in December and organised by ARPANSA, members of
the environmental movement were able to bring up many of the unanswered
questions. The following represents only a few. The full text of the hearings
can be obtained from the website www.arpansa.gov.au.
The Argentinean Economy
Whilst you might say what has the state of Argentina's economy got to do with
ARPANSA's decision to grant a construction license to INVAP, it is worthy of a
mention. It is certain that somewhere in the depths of our Department of Finance
the changes in the daily financial situation in Argentina are being studied with
great concern. Argentina has defaulted in its international debt repayments and
Presidents are changed almost daily.
From a grass roots view the connection of
Argentina going bankrupt and INVAP's ability to construct a safe reactor is
extremely important. As is its staying power to deal with follow-up problems.
INVAP was created under a Federal law that such companies must be fully owned by
the government, whether at federal, provincial or county level. It is fully
owned by the Province of Rio Negro and if the Federal government goes under
where will this leave INVAP?
The question that must be asked is, if INVAP, the provincial or the federal
government has to initiate large cost cutting measures, who, from Australia,
will oversee INVAP's capacity to under take the safe construction of a new
reactor? ARPANSA is struggling to keep up with its present workload and it is
likely that it would have to take on consultants. This might take ultimate
responsibility out of Australian hands.
The Egyptian Reactor
ANSTO has confirmed that any technical or design defects or problems are the
direct responsibility of INVAP. If anything goes wrong INVAP has to fix it. It
is all in the contract we are assured. But if INVAP goes belly up, as we all
know happens without notice these days, who would bail out ANSTO? Would we call
in one of the failed tenderers to see if they could fix any problems? One could
imagine the reply!
The Egyptian reactor is the only one of similar size to that proposed for
Australia that INVAP has ever built. Articles in the Australian magazine the
Bulletin suggested that all was not well with that reactor, claiming that it was
rarely operated and that there were technical problems that might have safety
implications. These reports were raised in the Senate inquiry at the October
2000 hearing. INVAP said that it was working at full power when they handed it
over in March 1998 and that how often it was used was up to the operator. No
worries!
When ARPANSA was questioned during the Senate hearing on the issue it said that
one of its senior mechanical engineers had visited the Egyptian reactor a year
earlier and was able to talk to the INVAP engineers, the operator and the
Egyptian regulator about its design, construction and operation. The impression
that he gained was that it was a well-constructed, well-designed reactor and
that the limitation in its operation was due to the demand put on it by the
operator, rather than a limitation in its design and construction. A repeat of
the evidence given by INVAP.
Last October, ARPANSA had second thoughts and its CEO Dr Loy, and senior staffer
Don Macnab had a two day visit to Egypt. The public outcome was a single page PR
release which contained mere hints of the problems that seem to confirm the
Bulletin article. In true Public Relationspeak it was confirmed that "there
are a small number of important technical issues that still need resolution if
Egypt is able to operate the reactor at full power.
Of particular interest in
the Australian context is the method of calculating the power peaking factor in
the reactor core and the formation of bubbles in the reactor pool. That such
issues arise in the commissioning of a new reactor design is not surprising or
unprecedented. Technical issues have arisen in the commissioning of new reactor
designs before now. Canada has not yet been able to fully operate its new Maple
reactors and the Hanaro reactor in South Korea had to operate at less than
maximum power for some time after commissioning."
At the recent public hearings Dr Loy, ARPANSA's CEO was asked whether, four
years after the hand-over by INVAP, the Egyptian reactor is working as regularly
as the operator would like? The reply, "The operator would certainly say
no". This confirmed that what INVAP said last year to the Senate was
incorrect.
The next question was, "Is the formation of bubbles in the reactor pool a
safety issue?" The reply, "It may be. What I mean by that is you
obviously have to understand why that is happening... and that is the issue.
Understanding that to determine whether it is a safety problem or whether it is
simply some if you like artefact that can be readily ignored or fixed in some
simple way. So it is a significant issue to be resolved."
One wonders if the Ministers that ARPANSA and ANSTO report to are fully informed
on these issues.
Security and Sabotage
In 1999 sabotage was raised in several submissions relating to the preparation
of a site for a proposed new reactor. In addition to the usual environmentalist
comments, a former ANSTO chief engineer and operator of HIFAR eloquently and
descriptively raised the subject. The response from Dr Loy was terse and
dismissive: "Of course it is possible to posit all sorts of simultaneous
disasters and suggest superhuman powers to saboteurs or enemies; but that does
not help the careful evaluation of a real-life proposal."
It would be good to hear a retraction of that 1999 statement in the light of the
events of September 11th in New York. It should be acknowledged that the world's
awareness of terrorism has heightened - even though it has been widely used in
Spain, the UK, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka and Russia for many years. The
perpetrators are far from superhuman, merely people willing to sacrifice their
lives for reasons outside the range of western understanding.
Even more important than a retraction of words, ARPANSA should reassess its
licence approval for the suitability of the Lucas Heights site before giving the
go-ahead for construction of a new reactor. Anything less would be a dereliction
of its duty.
Security
One of the strangest comments that senior Australian Government Ministers
repeated relating to the possibility of sabotage in Australia was that, ' there
was no specific threat.' Ministers, there never is (except in Ireland where
coded telephone warnings are sometimes given to the police). Sabotage just
happens.
Recently ARPANSA asked ANSTO to reassess its security measures for the site. Not
a bad idea but an independent assessment would have been better. This was
reported on the early morning ABC Radio National News. It was followed by a
quote from the CEO of ANSTO to the effect that a direct hit from a large
aircraft was unlikely - that the reactor is so small and mainly underground that
it was unlikely that it would be hit. It seemed that the reassessment had been
done before breakfast.
It should be noted that her reference to a direct hit by an aircraft was assumed
to be an accidental event. And that the successful raid by Greenpeace volunteers
on ANSTO, on the morning of the second day of the ARPANSA hearing it, was still
in the planning stage. (ANSTO's response to the raid was to claim that its
security was up to international standards. Precisely what we all thought!)
An Aircraft Attack
ANSTO claims that a key factor in the ability of a new reactor to withstand the
crash of an aircraft is the protective grillage. However, ANSTO restricts its
claims to a small jet aircraft saying that the unique grill is designed to
absorb the impact without damage to the reactor and the pool. It also refers to
a resultant fire that lasts 20 minutes! Again this hypothetical event would be
accident.
The construction licence application claims that the way the grill is designed
ensures that it is practical and nor merely decoration. ARPANSA has asked for
the rationale for reliance on the grill at the expense of a stronger containment
building. A good question but we will not know the answer until the reactor is
built!
The unresolved question is, will ARPANSA re-examine the grill design to see if
it would withstand the force of a large passenger plane deliberately flown into
the building? Predictably the actual details of the protective grill are now
unavailable to the public, having been placed under a security ban.
So much more was discussed over the two-day forum. Key issues were: availability
of new fuel types, waste storage and ultimate disposal, spent fuel reprocessing
and/or conditioning options, emergency planning (if any), lack of insurance
cover for the public, "permissible" radiation doses for the public.
Lots of good discussion - but what will the community gain from it all?
Michael Priceman
Nuclear Study Group
Sutherland Shire
Environmental Centre
Report on the Okinawa Symposium and
Conference (back to top)
--From Dimity Hawkins
I was invited to attend the Japan Peace Committee (JPC) conference in Okinawa
last year as representative of the Australian Peace Committee. The events were
held in two parts - first a symposium from 29?30 November which was attended by
around 100-150 special guests, followed by a two-day conference which was
attended by around 1500-1700 guests. The conference is an annual event (this
being the 6th year) hosted by the Japanese Peace Committee, an organization
which has around 20,000 members. JPC also organise the annual conference on A
& H bombs which attracts large numbers of participants.
The conference was being held at a interesting time, with the US and allies'
assaults on Afghanistan raging around two months after the attacks in the US.
Okinawa itself was in a state of high alert due to concerns about being targeted
by 'terrorists' because of the presence of the US bases. It was also a time of
intense political upheaval in Japan as, for the first time since World War II,
Japan was engaging in war activities, sending equipment and forces to support
the US "war on terrorism".
The Japan Peace Conference is usually hosted on the mainland of Japan, but with
this year's focus initially being on the US bases on foreign soil, it was taken
to Okinawa, the small island south of Japan and China. The symposium and
conference were held in Nago City, in the Northern part of the island, but we
toured many of the US bases around the island also.
History
In World War II, Okinawa was the place of the only land battle on Japanese
territory, a battle named "Iron Storm" that lasted 80 days in 1945.
The battle claimed lives of around 90,000 Japanese troops and 10,000 US
soldiers. However about one third of the local Okinawans also lost their lives
in this battle ? 10,000 non-combatants in total.
When the US took over the island following the battle they put locals in
concentration camps from which they were only released between 1945 - 1947. On
release most Okinawans found that their land and homes were gone, replaced by US
bases, a direct breach of international laws under the Hague Convention.
"Some 40,000 landowners lost their land and 12,000 households were forced
to leave their residences" according to a Ryukyu government document of the
time.
The agreement between the US and Japanese governments that made the continuation
of the bases and occupying forces possible was called the San Francisco Peace
Treaty and was signed in 1951.
The US handed Okinawa "back" to Japan in 1972, 27 years after the end
of WWII.
However the bases continue to occupy the island through agreement
between the US and Japanese governments, despite considerable attempts from
non-government organizations (NGO's) to rid Okinawa of the bases. Around 75% of
the US forces in Japan are located in Okinawa.
Okinawa has been used as the front base in all wars fought by the US since WWII,
including the Korean, Vietnam and Gulf Wars and is currently in use in the
attacks on Afghanistan.
Speech
"The elimination of terrorism and the role of the peace movement"
I bring greetings to this conference from the Australian Peace Committee, who
thank you sincerely for inviting a delegate to attend this important gathering.
Before coming here to represent the APC I had just completed a two month visit
to New York. In New York I worked with the Women's International League for
Peace and Freedom, monitoring the United Nations work on the Disarmament and
International Security Committee Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiations and the
annual debate of the General Assembly. I also worked over the week of the United
Nations debate on "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism"
which was held from October 1-5 at the United Nations and in which over 170
speeches were made on this subject.
Throughout all these international debates there were consistent and repeated
calls for a working definition of terrorism. In a briefing produced by the UN in
the international terrorism debate, it was noted that the "absence of a
definition [for terrorism] seriously undermined international efforts to tackle
a grave threat o humanity. Additionally, many governments noted that terrorism
does not occur in a vacuum, but rather occurs for reasons of economic
degradation, as well as social and political alienation. Freedom fighters and
those struggling for independence were an area of great contention, both in
defining the term terrorism and in identifying its root causes.
The international peace movement has the same problem. Before we can address our
topic of how to play a role in the elimination of terrorism we need to examine
what we see as the root causes of this problem and also how we define terrorism.
It is not enough to settle for simplistic definitions, such as those offered by
the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock,
who stated that "What looks, smells and kills like terrorism is
terrorism".
Instead we must address the full spectrum of issues associated with this
phenomena. To meet the challenge of eliminating terrorism we must work to
eradicate poverty, prevent and resolve conflicts and promote human rights and
the international rule of law. We must work to convert the war economy,
redirecting the expenditure of our nations from military to social priorities.
In all conflicts since 1945 there has lurked the possibility of nuclear war.
Despite recently announced cuts to the nuclear arsenals of the USA and Russian
Federation, there exists today still over 36,000 nuclear weapons in the world,
many still on hair trigger alert. The deep cuts negotiated by President Putin
and Bush earlier this month will not come fully into effect for another decade.
We can not wait that long. In addition, nuclear material in the form of depleted
uranium weaponry has been used in the Gulf War and in Yugoslavia; and we believe
it has been used in Afghanistan in the present conflict.
In a recent broadcast in Australia, Richard Butler strongly suggested that a
small nuclear device could be easily brought into a given country, assembled and
detonated, thereby making the US Missile Defense project ineffective and no
defense at all, but also points to the horrific possibility of terrorist groups
using such devices. The peace movement has of course spoken of this possibility
for decades.
The goals of disarmament are essential to our work. Weapons of mass destruction,
which include chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, must be eradicated and
this work continues with increased urgency within our own movement in light of
the present international climate of fear.
Within the United Nations there are a number of international treaties which can
assist states and non-state actors in working towards the goal of addressing and
eliminating terrorism. There are 12 international treaties on terrorism, as well
as another currently being negotiated specifically on nuclear terrorism. The
Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism currently also under negotiation seeks to
consolidate these.
The APC believes that world peace as well as the independence of nations,
defense of human rights, democracy, the environment, and the community at large,
can only succeed if the principles expressed so eloquently in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights are adhered to. In particular: "Everyone has
the right to life, liberty and security of person".
We believe that to ensure peace returns for all people in our world then we must
begin to restore the wealth to the third world developing nations who have had
to suffer the greed of the richest states. If we stop for a moment to consider
the massive haemorrhage of wealth from the poor nations to the rich over many
decades as a result of the Structural Adjustment Programs administered by the
World Trade Organization, then we might understand the source of discontent.
The
political, economic and social effects have been devastating: increased
malnutrition, illiteracy, infant mortality, and poverty. Millions of children
die annually as a result of debt induced austerity measures. World Bank and IMF
staff exert more power in some third world countries than government ministers.
There is little proof their policies do anything more than help bankers collect
interest. The main winners have been multinational corporations who benefit from
low commodity prices and low third world wages. Resentment has been growing in
the poor nations and their vulnerability to the most powerful nation is
increasing. In this climate terrorism has the potential to breed, and this is
increasingly recognized by the world's governments.
Although not the topic of this panel discussion, the APC wishes also to express
our deep concern to the continued presence in your country of U.S. bases. We
have been angered by the continued harassment of your people, especially young
women, in Okinawa and the psychological and environmental damage caused by the
US government's threatening foreign policy which maintains international
tensions in this region of our planet.
In Australia we continue to harbour US
bases such as the intelligence base at Pine Gap in central Australia. The base
was directly involved in the Gulf War and Yugoslavia conflicts, and will be in
use in this current conflict in Afghanistan. Pine Gap continues to maintain a
watchful eye over the region in the furthering of American national interests
overseas.
In Australia there is discontent emanating from some sections of the community
concerned with our immigration policy and the effect that this is having on the
mistreatment of asylum seekers. Many of these people are escaping the poverty
and terror experienced in their homelands in the Middle East. The racist
policies of our political leaders will alienate our country from the rest of the
region and indeed much of the world. This is a recipe for further tensions in
our region and does nothing to address the causes which see people becoming
refugees or asylum seekers. Instead these policies engender further alienation
of already marginalised communities and this in turn can foster resentment and
frustration in which terrorism finds a hold.
The APC believes there are a number of ingredients to building an anti-war,
antinuclear deterrence and in finding our role in the movement to eliminate
terrorism. We must have confidence in our people's potential to learn from their
experiences, to build solidarity across movements and across borders. There are
many diverse issues that impinge on securing peace and discouraging terrorism.
We must encourage the use of language that is civil, non-combative, seeking to
find a peaceful resolution to conflict; we must be prepared to learn from each
other's cultures and experiences; to work within the context we are familiar
with in order to change the existing social relationships that give rise to
conflict.
Additionally we need to:
. Develop stronger networks nationally and internationally to exchange
information;
. Respond to appeals for solidarity in resisting the existence of foreign bases
or military forces;
. Link the peace movements with the economic justice, women's and globalization
movements;
. Be active in monitoring the work of the UN and our governments when they speak
to forums on international security;
. And work together to find a working definition for terrorism which we can
refer to comprehensively when attempting to address terrorism's root causes from
the ground up.
The APC would support an International Day of Solidarity for Peace, and we would
support a reform of the United Nations to ensure a democratic representation on
the Security Council.
I would like to repeat how appreciative we are for the invitation to participate
in this conference. We look forward to continuing being part of this network in
the best interest of building an international culture of peace.
Together we can do this.
On 28th September last year, the Palestinian people commemorated the first
anniversary of the AI Aqsa intifada. They mourned the loss of loved ones and
renewed their determination to resist Israeli's brutal occupation and
oppression.
In the past 12 months, Israel has killed 718 Palestinians (a ratio of more than
five Palestinians to every one Israeli), of whom 87% were civilians and 198 were
children; 29,000 Palestinians have been wounded, of whom 10% are crippled for
life. More than 4,300 houses, apartments and factories have been bombed, as well
as 6 hospitals, 95 schools, 34 mosques, 12 churches and one synagogue; in
addition 385,808 olive and fruit trees have been cut down.
As a result of Israeli's military and economic siege Israel has completely
isolated Palestinian cities and villages and turned them into concentration
camps, with no freedom of movement, no exports or imports, and no raw materials,
in or out. This has resulted in losses of over US $5.5 billion which is more
than 75% of the annual national income of Palestine, pushing 56% of Palestinians
in the West Bank below the poverty line and a staggering 80% in Gaza. In
addition the unemployment level has risen to 57%.
The Palestinians have been struggling for their legitimate rights for the last
54 years. The intifada is the Palestinian people's expression for freedom and
independence.
The only way to bring peace and stability to the Middle East is by ending
Israel's occupation and violence in accordance with the United Nations [UNI]
resolutions 242 and 338, and allowing the return and compensation of Palestinian
refugees in accordance with UN resolution 194.
All justice and freedom loving people in the world are called upon to put peace,
freedom and justice for Palestine on the top of their lists of priorities. The
Palestinian people need your political as well as financial support more than
ever before.
If you wish to make a donation please make the cheque or money order payable to:
General Palestinian Delegation - and return your donation to: General
Palestinian Delegation, PO Box 4646, Kingston ACT 2604. Your donation, in total
will go to the intifada account run by a committee representing various
Palestinian ministries and organizations, with benefits going to the families
affected by the Al Asqa intifada, the families of the killed and wounded and the
unemployed, without any percentage cut for administration.
Back to Top
| 
