July / August 2002
Fact Finding Mission to the Occupied
Palestinian Territories (back to
top)
Union Aid Abroad - APHEDA was established in1984. APHEDA’s first
projects were with Palestinian refugees, as a response to the violation of the
Palestinian peoples’ human rights and their struggle for self-determine.
APHEDA’s program aims to demonstrate solidarity and commitment with the
Palestinian people through humanitarian assistance, advocacy and lobbying.
A delegation of five people went on a fact-finding mission to
the Occupied Palestinian Territories [OPT] to observe first-hand the situation
of the Palestinians at this time, especially in relation to their non-government
or community sector, and specifically, the situation for Union Aid Abroad. And
to better understand the health, social, economic and political impacts of the
current crisis. They investigated the destruction of aid organisations in Gaza
and the West Bank as well as bearing witness to recent military operations. They
visited areas such as Jenin, Nablus, Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
The members of the delegation were: Cecily Holmes APHEDA, Peter
Davidson NTEU, Kathryn Kelly the Greens Party, Phil Davey CFMEU and Pat Branson
CPSU/CSA.
Trade union help
One result of 35 years of military occupation and control of the
Palestinian economy is an economic structure whereby many Palestinians worked in
Israel as day-labourers, as part-time labour or as low paid, regular
non-permanent labour. However, the Israeli government has now stopped most of
this labour entering Israel. Unemployment has rocketed to an estimated 67%.
Hundreds of unemployed workers go each day to register themselves and their
families for assistance of some kind, a job or for free or subsidised health
cover. Lines of unemployed workers can stretch up to two and a half kilometres.
The unions have taken Israeli employers to court to
recover lost wages and entitlements due to the sudden cessation of employment
due to the sieges. When the employer cannot be persuaded to pay, an Israeli
lawyer must argue the matter because Palestinian lawyers are not recognised by
the Israeli courts.
The Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions [PGFTU] seems
to be doing work that should be done by the Dept. Social services. It is
building up members who pay when they can and recreating the solidarity that is
sorely needed by unions all over the world. The PGFTU has established a workers
radio network and are trying to organise exports of olive oil.
Water and agriculture
The delegation heard from the Applied Research Institute
Jerusalem, that currently, Israel uses 79% of the water from Mountain Aquifer
and all of the water from the Jordan River Basin, bar a small quantity it sells
to Palestinians in Gaza. The result is apartheid in all but name. Israelis get
350 litres of water per person per day, Palestinians get just 70 litres. The
minimal quantity of water recommended by the World Health Organisation is 100
litres.
When supplies run low during the summer months, the Israeli
water company, Mekorot, simply shuts off the valves that supply Palestinian
towns. This means settlers get their swimming pools topped up while Palestinian
villages a few miles away run out of drinking water.
Since the start of the Intifada, Israel has made it almost
impossible for water tankers to enter Palestinian areas, or for villagers to get
to nearby wells. B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, says Israeli soldiers
sometimes beat and humiliate tanker drivers or deliberately spill their water.
Israeli reluctance to relinquish control of the West Bank water
is not surprising. More than a quarter of its water supplies now come from the
West Bank aquifer, and over a third comes from the Jordan Basin.
Israel likes to boast about how it made the desert bloom, how
the original inhabitants of Palestine were “wasting” the land. But far from
wasting the land, the Arabs lived within its constraints. By making the desert
bloom, Israel has simply turned parts of Arab land into desert, unable to
provide its habitants with water.
Infrastructure
The escalation of violence and the military occupation of the
territories have caused great physical damage to the infrastructure and the
agricultural land. Preliminary figures put the cost of reconstruction of public
and private buildings and infrastructure in the West Bank alone at some $US 432
million.
Postal services are minimal or non-existent. The health care
system has been impacted on with shortages of medical equipment and supplies.
Medical centres lack basic resources. Roadblocks and checkpoints, which show no
[more] respect for ambulances than any other vehicle,
appear to prevent or severely delay patients reaching medical services.
Many roads are in extremely poor condition. Major roads have
been commandeered, and many side roads show evidence of being deliberately dug
up, blown up or blocked.
The damage from recent military incursions includes complete
destruction of police and security buildings. Electricity poles knocked over and
electric wires cut. Traffic lights destroyed water and sewerage pipes dug up,
251 cars crushed by tanks in Ramallah alone.
Human rights abuses
The delegation met with a number of human rights groups and
during these meetings they were informed that the Israeli occupying forces
regularly destroy Palestinian property in the OPT. The land is then “cleansed
”of Palestinians and appropriated for either army or settler use. The extensive,
unlawful and wanton destruction or expropriation of property, not justified by
military necessity, is a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Israel often claims that Palestinian houses and land have to be
destroyed and cleared because they are used for bases from which to attack
Israeli military posts and settlements. Yet most destruction of property in the
Gaza strip takes place without any judicial process, including presentation of
evidence, adequate warning or opportunity for appeal. In some refugee camps,
strips of houses have been destroyed to create “buffer zones” between Israeli
army positions and Palestinian areas. Israeli forces also demolish houses of
alleged “terrorists” or their families, even though collective punishment is
prohibited by the Convention.
Israeli occupation forces have demolished at least 560 housing
in the Gaza strip during the al-Aqsa Intafada, rendering thousand of
Palestinians homeless. Families are often awoken in the middle of the night to
find an Israeli bulldozer outside and given minutes to collect their belongings
before demolition begins.
The Israeli Supreme Court in March 2002 decided to legalise
house demolitions in the OPT rather than ban them, while ruling that the army
must be given an opportunity for appeal. Israeli forces have since demolished a
number of houses without warning, in violation of the Supreme Court ruling
Israeli occupation forces have razed about 1,600 hectares in the
Gaza Strip, most of it agricultural, crippling the livelihoods of thousands of
farmers. Trees, greenhouses, wells, irrigation networks and storage facilities
have been destroyed. Restorations of this land to full agricultural use would
take years.
Bethlehem
The delegation went to the Church of Nativity where they met
with the abbot. He told them of the recent siege and the terror the people in
the church were put through for 39 days whilst the Israelis circled the area and
refused to allow food or aid to get through. Israeli snipers were on the
rooftops and shot at anyone they could get a sight on. 17 people were killed by
sniper fire in the church. Christian symbols such as statues were shot at and
the church was damaged including ancient mosaics.
During the siege and curfew, Israeli soldiers terrorised local
inhabitants. Homes were burnt, cars and shops destroyed, electricity wires were
cut and a mosque was burnt.
The fire brigade was prevented from attending fires.
Bullets were fired into homes and water tanks destroyed
Jenin and Nablus
Refugee camps are home to Palestinians who were driven from
their villages in what is now present-day Israel.
The delegates visited a refugee camp in Jenin, which had once
been a very established urban area. An area about the size of 10 football fields
was bulldozed. Sometimes people were still in their houses when the bulldozers
went over them.
The delegation was given many personal accounts of what people
saw during the 17 days the military carried out its operations in Jenin. One
woman was shot through the window while she was making bread. Her 11year old son
was with her when she was shot. He told the delegation “they shot mum in the
breast and the head. I was calling out to our neighbour to contact the
ambulance. He called back to me saying the ambulance is not allowed in and each
time it tries to get in it is shot at.” It took three days for his mother to
die, and the ambulances weren’t allowed into Jenin for six days.
The delegation was told a story of a disabled man who wheeled
out in his wheelchair in front of the Israelis with a white flag. The Israelis
shot him, and then ran over his wheelchair with a tank.
F-16 rockets hit Nablus before tanks moved in. People were
locked in their homes for 17 days. Israeli soldiers again shot at the water
tanks leaving the people without water. The damage in Nablus, according to the
delegation, was appalling.
Illegal settlements
From the delegation’s discussions with Palestinian people, the
continuing construction of illegal settlements on Palestinian land is one of the
key reasons for the growing frustration and anger of Palestinians. The
settlements are not benign little villages, they are major constructions. There
are between 150 to 200 settlements housing around 380,000 settlers. These are
illegal settlements.
The delegation was told that Palestinians have to pay a tax to
the Israeli government to get a permit to build a house on their own land. This
tax is about $US 30,000. Houses built without a permit can be bulldozed however
there are major financial incentives for Israelis to move into settlements in
the West bank.
Some settlers are supporters of the Zionist move to expand
Israeli borders to take over the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, which they
call “greater Israel”. They believe that Israel’s eastern border should be the
Jordan River. This is despite international law not recognising this land as
Israel. It appears that some of the more extreme elements in the Israeli
government would dearly like to have total legal ownership of the occupied
territories including the removal of the “Palestinian Problem”. This is openly
spoken about among the right wing politicians who talk about the transfer of
Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt.
Road closures
Palestinian roads near the settlements are closed to Palestinian
traffic. Check points have been established and Palestinians are not allowed to
drive on these roads. In contrast, new roads and highways are being built for
Israelis. Palestinian and Israelis have their own identifiable number-plates.
There are many roads that cars with Palestinian number plates are not allowed to
use. The delegation found few roads remaining in the OPT which Palestinians
could use.
There more than 230 fixed military checkpoints in the West Bank
and Gaza strip with many more roving military ones. The checkpoints are ringed
with razor wire and watched over from gun posts by Israeli Defence Force
soldiers in full battle gear.
Homes and market gardens have been bulldozed to make way for
these check points.
The check points are crowded with Palestinian workers,
mothers with small children and babies, infirm people and people trying to go
about their daily business. The atmosphere there is filled with weariness,
frustration, fear, and helplessness yet a resilience that belied the
circumstances.
Mothers and their babies have died in childbirth at “Check
points” because soldiers refused to let them through for medical treatment.
Others have died from serious diseases from being refused transit, or entry to
hospitals.
Travel restrictions
Palestinian travel has been severely tightened by the Israelis
through the creation of 8 cantons. Special permission is needed to travel from
one canton to the other.
The delegation experienced first hand the result of these
restrictions. Due to the road closures and checkpoints they had to drive across
paddocks. The brightly lit settlements on the hills above them were shooting out
flares. They knew they had become a target and had to get out of the area
quickly. Luckily for them a Palestinian family took them in and put them up for
the night.
The delegation, in their report, made a number of
recommendations.
Every Palestinian and every Palestinian organisation the
delegation spoke to acknowledged that Israel has a right to exist within
internationally accepted borders. They also believe that Palestine too has a
right to exist within internationally accepted borders. The delegation believes
that independence for Palestine is the most essential pre-requisite for peace in
the Middle East.
While Palestine continues to live under an often-brutal military
occupation, with its economy colonised and land and water being taken,
resistance is inevitable.
Every Palestinian the delegation spoke to disapproved of suicide
bombers. They also disapproved of state-sponsored terrorism, which has seen over
1,500 Palestinians killed in the past two years. Israel must renounce
state-terrorism against Palestinians, while all Palestinian organisations should
renounce suicide bombings and actions against civilians in Israel as a means of
ending military occupation and of winning independence and statehood.
This is a brief edited version of the delegates’ 26-page report.
A complete report can be obtained by ringing APHEDA on 02 9264-9343 or write to
APHEDA, 3rd floor, 377 Sussex Street Sydney 2000
The new reactor on shaky grounds at
Lucas Heights (back to top)
by Michael Priceman
John Loy, the CEO of Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Agency [ARPANSA], the so-called ‘independent’ nuclear regulator,
announced the granting of the construction licence for the new reactor on Friday
5th April. A press conference was rumoured but it was cancelled, presumably so
as not to face media questions. A press release confirmed the licence and a
3-page statement of reasons accompanied it. A further, more detailed document
[89] pages is available from ARPANSA’s website if you have a printer suitable
for the task or in hard copy from the ARPANSA office – they have lots of reasons
why you could read it in their office or in the public library. Just insist on a
hard copy posted to you!
ANSTO’S Professor Helen Garnett called a press conference at the
Stamford Airport Hotel using public funds. PANR [People against a Nuclear
Reactor] and members of Greenpeace arrived to listen to her comments. However,
in the true tradition of democracy, freedom of expression and the much hyped –
but non-existent- Community Right to know Charter, we were denied entry by an
inscrutable member of the Australian Federal Police. Doing his job to the
extreme he also prevented entry to members of the media who arrived a few
minutes late. After a few pointed and heated words he allowed them to pass.
When the press emerged, environments groups were able to hold
their own conference that received a fair amount of media interest.
All the major deficiencies of the licence application were
glossed over by Dr Loy in his licence approval – wast storage and disposal – the
effect of a worst case accident - sabotage – the Argentinean economy – the
ability of INVAP to complete the job – the Egyptian ‘reference’ reactor not
performing after 4 years and having technical problems that could have safety
implications – lack of a workable emergency plan – that the design submitted was
far from complete [‘a living document’]
Legal challenge to the project
In France there are no authorisations in place for the
reprocessing of Australian spent nuclear fuel, and the facilities proposed to do
so are technically unable to perform that role.
In Argentina, INVAP, the company that is to build the new
reactor, has contracted to condition Australian nuclear wastes. But Argentina
has no facilities, let alone licensed facilities with which to do so. The
importation of radioactive wastes is currently prohibited by the Argentinean
constitution, and therefore sections of the contract with Argentina are
unconstitutional in that country.
In April, Greenpeace Australia launched a legal challenge in the
Federal court against the granting of a construction licence for a second
reactor in Sydney. The challenge affects both ARPANSA and the Australian Nuclear
Science and Technology Organisation [ANSTO], which want to build the reactor.
The challenge specifies the failure by the decision maker
[ARPANSA] to take into account “the standard of international best practice in
relation to the management, handling, transport, processing and storage of spent
nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.” The hearing has taken place and the result
will be expected shortly.
The unknown effects of a worst case accident
At the Senate Estimates Committee Dr Loy was asked about the
effects of a terrorist attack. Here is part of the text
Dr Loy – “Not formally as yet, but obviously we will follow that
up. Its analysis looked at the entire radioactive inventory of the core and took
into account the almost inevitable consequences of a large aircraft crash, a
large fire, so the combination of the energy in the fire and the availability of
the radioactive inventory would obviously lead to off-site consequences,
assuming that the containment was also breached, which it presumably would be in
this scenario.
The energy of the fire would cause the radioactive cloud, if you
like, to rise up, to be quite buoyant and then spread, such that it would be
quite dispersed. The doses to any individual would be relatively small, but they
would occur at some distance from the facility. We are still playing with that
analysis, to be certain that we think it is okay, and we are also looking at its
sensitivity to the various assumptions that are made into it. The total
collective radiation dose that is figured in that would be comparable to, but a
little in excess of, the collective dose that was in the reference accident in
the siting licence assessment for the Lucas Height site, but not dramatically
so. There would certainly be no instant fatalities: a number of persons would
receive a dose, which would increase the risk of a fatal cancer in due course.
The total expected deaths from that are a little larger than the
reference accident we used in the siting, but not much, and the existing kind of
emergency plans, the basis for them, including the national antiterrorist plan,
would continue to be appropriate as responses to this, should it occur.”
Since the granting of a construction licence for a new
reactor ARPANSA has refused to make public its analysis of the effects of a
worst case reactor accident – even to members of the State Emergency Services
Agencies.
Emergency planning
The debate continues as to whether emergency planning for an
accident at Lucas Heights was up to par. A Sydney Morning Herald article dealt
only with a new reactor but ended with “Dr Loy [ARPANSA] conceded that the
emergency plans for the HIFAR reactor had not been reviewed in the light of
either terrorist attack or the current assessment of iodine and children. He
said that this was likely to happen in the next 12-18 months.” That is to say 45
years after HIFAR was turned on. And 4 years after ARPANSA was formed.
The local “Leader” followed with an article on the availability
of potassium tablets and which NSW government agency was responsible for their
distribution. At present there is a disagreement between NSW Health and the NSW
Ambulance on this subject. The Leader attempted to get some official comment.
The ambulance service refused to comment, referring the matter to NSW Health,
which, in turn referred it to the Premier’s Office. We hope that nothing serious
happens this weekend at the reactor site!
Troubled ANSTO site
Staff levels. “The Leader” reported that ARPANSA had been
sent to investigate a report that HIFAR had been operating below its legal and
safe staffing level. The issue had arisen after staff in the reactor had refused
to load silicon ingots and mineral samples into the reactor for irradiation.
This related to an ongoing disagreement about a new enterprise agreement for
ANSTO employees. The outcome was that ARPANSA was “satisfied that ANSTO
maintained the minimum staffing level required.”
Federal interference in union negotiations. Another
article described a dispute between the CFMEU, the NSW Labour Council and John
Holland, one of the firms contracted to build the new reactor. It seems that the
Labour Council has been lobbying to ensure the inclusion of a clause in the
project agreement that encourages management to check the immigration status of
workers on the site. It seems the Federal Government’s Office of the Employment
Advocate [OEA] has intervened to prevent such a clause. Andrew Ferguson,
secretary of the CFMEU, NSW, said that “it was unbelievable that the OEA had
intervened in the negotiations and even more extraordinary that this
interference relates to the nuclear reactor where the last thing we need is
unknown persons getting onto this high security site”.
Workers contaminated following an accident. Radioactivity
on the clothes of workers contaminated in an accident at Lucas Heights was
carried into cars and homes in Sutherland Shire. The accident took place in
March when a spent fuel rod was cropped incorrectly, releasing uranium and
fission products into the storage pond. The pond was, and is still, contaminated
two months later. At present the contamination will not allow more used fuel
rods from the HIFAR reactor to be added to the pond.
To complicate this matter further, “The Leader” reported on 3
July that bores have been sunk around building 23 that houses the storage pond.
This is following the finding of “a tiny amount of water from building 23
cooling pond was found in a purpose built leakage collection sump on inspection
last year”. The bores have been sunk to see whether any water had escaped into
the surrounding environment.
An earthquake fault line found. More recently, during
excavations for the new reactor building, an earthquake fault line was found.
Whilst this is still under investigation, ANSTO is playing down the risks and
Minister McGauran boldly states the project “will proceed post haste”. It would
seem that both ANSTO and the nuclear regulator ARPANSA, are willing to take the
risk on behalf of the local community – without reference to it.
Add to all this is the news from Argentina where the economy
worsens daily and, to help the cash-strapped banks, depositors are denied access
to their savings.
For further details contact Michael Priceman, Nuclear Study
Group, Sutherland Shire Environment Centre. Email: priceman@acay.com.au
Peace
Activists protest against Japanese Defence Bills
(back to top)
by Akifuji Yoko
The focus of debate in Japan during the spring of 2002 has
been the possible legislation of bills, which would open the way for Japan to
join a US-led war, and would mobilise and force the Japanese people to cooperate
in it.
The current government is making every effort in the current
Diet session to pass three “ bills on emergency defence” which would provide a
legal framework to carry out wars, including a “Bill on situations of Armed
Attack”.
Based on the review of its past wars of aggression, Japan
started afresh after the Second World War by declaring its “renunciation of war”
and “denial of armaments or right of belligerency” in Article 9 of its new
Constitution. However, ever since this principle was set up, there have been
constant attempts to undermine Article 9 by the US, wanting to make Japan a
sortie base for prevailing in Asia, which has been backed by the Japanese
government.
SDF
Vast US military bases were set up across the Japanese
territory; the Self-Defence Forces [SDF] were established right after the war,
on the pretext that they would not infringe on the Constitution, if it were to
be used for the purpose of “defence”. Japan is now the country with the second
largest military spending in the world.
Since the SDF was created, the Japanese and US ruling circles
have consistently aimed at legislating the bill on emergency defence, thereby
allowing the SDF to participate in wars of intervention waged by the US in Asia
and to mobilise the whole nation in the effort. However in face of the strong
and broad public support for Article 9, they have so far failed in attempting
the legislation of a bill or in dispatching the SDF troops to join military
actions outside of Japan. The effort currently being made is to carry their plan
through at a dash, taking advantage of the people’s fears being excited by the
problems of terrorism.
Two major issues
The proposed legislation involves two major issues.
Firstly, “preparing to protect Japan from foreign armed attack”
is only a pretext given by the Japanese government for lifting all the
constraints now put on the SDF in its possible involvement in armed activities
overseas.
During the current Diet debate, the Secretary of Defence himself
clearly stated that at present, there is currently no real danger of Japan being
put at risk of being attacked.
The true and greatest aim in this legislation is to open
the way for Japan to join a war started by the US and to use its armed forces
outside Japan for the first time after WW11.
Backed by the strong US demand, the” law to deal with situations
in areas surrounding Japan” was set up in 1999. It was a law allowing the SDF to
provide logistic support to US forces in the case of a military intervention in
Asia. Unable to permit the use of force for purposes other than “self-defence”,
the Japanese government had to rule that the SDF “would not use force” under
this law.
Also, since its involvement in the US war of retaliation against
Afghanistan last year, the Japanese government, for the first time, sent SDF
warships to the area concerned. That time, also, the government was unable to
totally ignore the restrictions of the Constitution and was obliged to limit SDF
activities, ruling they would only support the US in its war against terrorism
and would not launch an armed attack
In contrast, this “Bill on Situations of Armed Attack” would
build a mechanism for the SDF to participate in a war of intervention started by
the US outside Japan, including the use of force, thus allowing Japan to launch
military actions overseas, even without direct attacks against Japan. This would
amount to a blatant violation of Article 9 in the Constitution. The proposed
bill gives no clear definition on the ideas and scope of the “situations of
armed attack”, and there is a grave danger of its coverage being arbitrarily
expanded without limit.
Secondly, the bill would force the Japanese people to be
mobilised in the event of a US war and would seriously infringe on their freedom
and human rights. Under the proposed bill, all Japanese citizens would be
obligated to cooperate with the war efforts, and those working for the public
institutions such as broadcasting stations, or in the medical, transport,
construction or civil engineering industries, would be forced to cooperate with
or be mobilised in war efforts. Those requested to offer their houses, land or
materials necessary for waging war have to meet with the request, and if they
deny their cooperation, they will be subject to penalties for committing a
criminal offence. Infringing on freedom and human rights, this bill would
deprive people of their democratic rights stipulated in the Constitution of
Japan.
2002 -- A war year
What kind of war does the US intend to start? Turning a deaf ear
to the voices of the people all over the world calling for terrorists to be
brought to justice, the US government instead caused massive deaths of innocent
civilians in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration blatantly shows its
unilateralists action policy, in trying to expand the war, calling 2002 “a war
year”, and making certain countries targets of nuclear attack by calling them an
“axis of evil”. The justification for military actions made by the US in the
name of “combating of terrorism” has been adopted by regional leaders in the
Middle East crisis, triggered by the Israeli invasion of Palestine, and also in
the growing tension between India and Pakistan. This justification only
accelerates the vicious cycle of terrorism and retaliation.
As a people with the experience of the A-bombing and Article 9
of the Constitution, we are absolutely opposed to being mobilised into such wars
waged by the US.
Peace walk
We are now making every effort to stop the legislation of the
bills, working hand in hand with a broad range of people in Japan opposed to the
bill. Japan Gensuikyo, in its Standing Board Meeting last April adopted a
resolution, “We demand for an immediate withdrawal of the’ contingency bills’
aimed at the national mobilisation in support of US wars”. Peace marchers are
now walking across Japan, heading for Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, the
venues for of the World Conference against A & H Bombs. Throughout the peace
march people are spreading the demands to “Stop the legislation for emergency
defence that would drag Japan into US-led wars”. This is combined with the call
to “Stop the use of nuclear arms. Carry out the agreement to abolish nuclear
weapons”.
All across Japan, people of different faiths, women, youth,
academics, intellectuals and others are raising their voices in opposition,
holding street campaigns and collecting petitions.
A protest rally on May 24 gathered 40,000 people, and was called
for by workers in airlines, marine and ground transportation industries, who are
most likely to be the first civilian workers to be mobilised in wars.
A prominent lawyers’ organisation in Japan also expressed its
opposition, and many municipal heads, including the Governor of the Hiroshima
Prefecture, have voiced their concerns.
Voices of deep concerns over the current moves in Japan are
heard in many countries around the world, especially among Asian nations, who
were made the worst victims of Japan’s war of aggression. The Japanese peace
forces are determined to protect Article 9 of the Constitution and block the
recurrence of the past error of invading Asian countries by following the
expectations of the peace-loving people in Asia and around the world.
Vanunu’s photos of Israel’s secret nuclear
arsenal (back to top)
A series of dramatic photographs taken surreptitiously by
nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu can now be viewed for the first time on
the Internet. Fifteen full-colour images captured shortly before he left his job
at the Dimona site reveal the machinery of the advanced factory producing
Israel’s nuclear weapons.
The photographs provide the documentary evidence behind Vanunu’s
historical revelation of Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal. Many of the Internet
images are presented in the public domain for the first time. In October 1986,
the London Sunday Times published just a few of the 60 photos Vanunu took in
1985.
The selected Internet photographs show reactor and production
control panels; laboratory prototypes of nuclear weapon cores; gloves boxes for
handling radioactive plutonium and uranium; and machine tools that produce
critical parts for what many experts believe to be the world’s fourth largest
nuclear weapons arsenal. The photo gallery can be seen on the website of the US
Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu at
www.nonviolence.org/vanunu/photos.html
Mordechai Vanunu’s unprecedented documentary photography of
Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal deserves new scrutiny in light of the current
climate of a so-called “war against terrorism.”
It is important to present these photos because they show that a
significant threat from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East comes
from a country that still does not officially acknowledge that it possesses
nuclear weapons but in fact is one of the world’s top nuclear powers. It is time
for Israel to open Dimona to international inspection, and allow its citizens to
consider the health, environmental and national security consequences of the
nuclear weapons factory in their country. And it time for Israel to free Vanunu,
who should not have to spend one more day in prison for his courageous act of
whistle blowing.
Millions more survive on only a
dollar a day (back to top)
More than 100 million people in the world’s poorest countries
will be dragged below the basic wage subsistence level of a dollar a day by 2015
as they become ensnared in globalisation’s poverty trap, the United Nations has
warned.
An in-depth study into the world’s least developed countries
rejects claims that globalisation is good for the poor, arguing that the
international trade and economic system is part of the problem, not the
solution. “The current form of globalisation is tightening rather than loosening
the international poverty trap,” the study warns.
As markets become more entwined, the UN says the world economy
is becoming increasingly polarised, and the least developed countries are being
left behind.
Shut out of more lucrative markets by Western trade barriers,
they depend on cash crops for survival, but the prices of their main export
goods have crashed over the past two decades. Living standards in the least
developed countries, which depend on basic commodities, are lower now than they
were 30 years ago.
“International policy needs to give more attention to breaking
the link between primary commodity dependence, pervasive extreme poverty and
unsustainable external debt,” the UN says.
Calls for poor countries to open their markets will not help
them escape the poverty trap. The study says: “Contrary to conventional wisdom,
persistent poverty in poor countries is not due to insufficient trade
liberalisation.” In fact in the poorest countries, trade accounts for just over
40% of GDP – higher than the average for rich countries.
“The problem for the least developed countries [LDC] is
not the level of integration with the world economy but rather the form of the
integration the report says”. “ For many LDCs external trade and finance
relationships are integral parts of the poverty trap.”
Despite efforts by Western donors to tackle the third world’s
loan burden, the poorest countries are still lumbered with unpayable debts. The
23 least developed countries have a debt burden, which is unsustainable,
according to the World Bank.
The UN study says that servicing the debt overhang is swallowing
official aid budgets. “Aid disbursements have increasingly been allocated to
ensure that official debts are serviced. In this aid/debt service system, the
development impact of aid is being undermined.”
Widespread poverty is itself contributing to economic
stagnation. With most households earning barely enough to survive, there is no
spare cash for the investment that might help countries break out of the poverty
trap. Low incomes leads to low investment, and low investment leads to low
productivity and low income.
The UN says a number of people living in extreme poverty in the
least developed countries are greater than had been previously thought. The
study calculates that 307 million people live on less than a dollar a day, a
number which is set to rise to 420 million over the next 15 years. The study
underlines the scale of the challenge global leaders set themselves two years
ago when they promised at the UN’s millennium summit to halve the number of the
world’s population that live on less than a dollar a day by 2015. None of the 49
least developed countries is on track to meet that target.
The study manages to strike an upbeat note, insisting that with
“development- orientated poverty reduction strategies “ rapid gains in living
standards could be achieved. It says that widespread poverty in the least
developed countries could be cut by two-thirds over the next 15 years.
Source: Guardian Weekly
Jack Forward, our rep in the Central Coast has sent off
the following letter to Alexander Downer,
“Dear Minister
What fools we have all been over the years to:
Trust mistake prone human beings in government with military
weapons and the power to make war.
Allow governments to spend trillions of taxpayer’s dollars over
the years on weapons and armed forces.
Cling to the idea that every nation can always successfully
defend itself and that every nation can afford to do so.
Waste billions every year on the world’s military and arms
makers while millions of children and adults exist in poverty on the planet.
Fail to create a low cost International Peacekeeping System for
the security of all countries.
Allow the United States and other major powers [the major arms
producers] to dictate policy and sideline the United Nations, the body created
after the catastrophe of World War 2 to deliver peace to the world and prevent
World War 3
My Dear Sir it should be obvious to everybody that we can no
longer depend upon the existing Foreign Affaires and Defence Policies of the
nations of the world to deliver security to all nations and peoples. They have
failed”.
Back to Top
| 
