March / April 2000
No Justification for Mandatory Sentencing (back
to top)
In a just society it is unacceptable if one group of people continues to
experience significant disadvantages. Yet In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people as a whole, fall far below the level of well-being
enjoyed by the wider community.
And this is the case in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory where
the reality of mandatory sentencing hangs like a noose over the head of
juveniles who, in most cases are Aborigines and, have committed quite paltry
crimes. Certainly nothing like the massive crimes of theft and fraud that have
been perpetrated by some of the white collar community.
Members of the APC have been shocked by the death of the young Aboriginal boy
who hanged himself whilst in a Darwin Detention Centre. The APC wrote to the
Attorney General, Daryl Williams, asking him to step in and overturn the
heartless mandatory sentencing laws of WA and NT.
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in custody reported in 1991 and made
339 recommendations to prevent custodial deaths and address the underlying
causes of indigenous people's excessive contact with the justice system.
Australia's governments, Commonwealth and State Territory, supported all but one
of these recommendations and made commitments to implement them.
Rallies against mandatory sentencing have been held in many cities in an
endeavour to prevent further deaths; and in the hope of appealing to any caring
members of the Coalition.
Winsome Matthews from the Women's Legal Resources Centre spoke of the injustice
occurring to her people. Her address is printed elsewhere in the Peace Courier.
Green's Senator Bob Brown spoke at the Sydney rally where he was received with
much enthusiasm.
It was Senator Brown who had placed before the Senate a Private Member's Bill
which called for the reform of mandatory detention laws. His bill was based on
Australia's obligations under the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
Senator Brown was able to obtain the support of the Labor Party and the
Democrats in the Senate. However his strong support was not translated into the
House.
The Prime Minister has not allowed a vote of conscience among his Coalition
members as he did when he wanted to overturn the Northern Territory Euthanasia
Law.
It just shows, after all, what a "little man" he really is.
Fact Sheet:
Prepared by Trish Crossin Labor Senator for the Northern Territory Inquiry into
Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999 - Terms of
Reference.
On 1 September 1999, the Senate referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional
References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in the year
2000, the following matter arising from the introduction of the Human Rights
(Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999:
(a) the legal, social and other impacts of mandatory sentencing;
(b) Australia's international human rights obligations in regard to mandatory
sentencing laws in Australia;
(c) The implications of mandatory sentencing for particular groups, including
Australia's indigenous people and people with disabilities; and
(d) The constitutional power of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with
respect to existing laws affecting mandatory sentencing.
NT Legislation: (Source: NT Government submission)
On 8 March 1997 - the Northern Territory Sentencing Amendment Act (No. 2) 1996
and the Juvenile Justice Amendment Act (No.2) 1996 commenced. These Acts
provided for mandatory minimum sentences for juveniles aged 15 and 16, and for
adults aged 17 and over, upon conviction of certain circumstances, of specified
property offences against the laws of the Northern Territory.
The effect of the law for (persons) aged 17 and over was that: upon conviction
of the first property offence, and offender must be sentenced to a minimum
period of 14 days imprisonment;
Upon conviction of the second property offence, an offender must be sentenced to
a minimum of 90 days imprisonment; and upon conviction of the third property
offence, an offender must be sentenced to a minimum period of 12 months
imprisonment.
The effect of the law for juveniles aged 15 and 16, was that:
upon a charge and conviction for the first property offence, the full range of
sentencing options were available, including non-custodial options and not
recording a conviction;
upon a second or subsequent conviction in relation to a property offence, an
offender must be sentenced to a minimum period of 28 days detention in a
juvenile detention centre.
Property offences covered by the regime include:
- stealing (except shoplifting)
- robbery
- assault with intent to steal
- unlawful entry into buildings
- unlawful use of a motor vehicle, vessel, caravan or trailer
- receiving stolen property
- criminal damage
WA Legislation
The Western Australia Criminal Code Amendment Act (No2) 1996 came into effect on
14 November 1996. It provides that offenders who have been convicted for the
third or more home burglary must be sentenced to a minimum period of 12 months
detention. It applies to both juvenile and adult offenders.
Justification for laws
The prime motivation for introducing mandatory sentencing schemes appears to be
perceptions of an increased crime rate, often colloquially referred to by
politicians and others as a "crime wave".
Justification for the WA legislation were the high burglary rate, the traumatic
impact of burglaries on victims and the limited targeting imposed by the
legislation. There was virtually no public discussion or consultation prior to
the proclamation of the legislation - which coincided with the day when the
Court Government announced the State election. In the NT mandatory sentencing
was introduced in response to community concern about rising crime and in
response to a perception that "soft, cuddly, pussycat magistrates and
judges" were to blame for high rates of property crime. It was introduced
without meaningful consultation with the judiciary, the legal profession or
other interested parties.
The following statistics were produced by the North Australian Aboriginal Legal
Aid Service in "Dollars Without Sense - A Review of the NT's Mandatory
Sentencing Laws", November 1999. These statistics are also supported by
evidence to the Inquiry from the National Children's and Youth Law Centre, the
NT Bar Association, the Criminal Lawyer's Association of the NT, and ATSIC.
Mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime
* Western Australia and the Northern Territory have the highest rates of home
burglary and attempted home burglary in Australia.
* There has been no change in the overall reporting of property crime in the
Northern Territory since mandatory sentencing was introduced.
* Reports of home burglaries increased between June 1997 and June 1998.
* There has been no real change in the number of offenders charged with property
offences.
Mandatory sentencing does not deter crime
* Northern Territory Correctional Services report that the rate of re-offending
has not gone down since mandatory sentencing was introduced.
* NT Police report that the clear up rate for house breaking is about 15%. This
means 85% of suburban burglars don't get caught. Darwin's property offenders are
unlikely to be deterred while they know the odds of getting caught are low.
* The majority of offenders who are caught are Aboriginal and committed their
offence in a remote Aboriginal community. North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid
Service criminal lawyers report that most had not heard of mandatory sentencing
and did not understand it. A person cannot be deterred by something they do not
know about.
* The study of North Australian Aboriginal Legal
Aid Service (NAALAS) criminal cases found last 63% of offenders were effected by
drugs, alcohol or petrol at the time of offending. A person who is not capable
of thinking cannot be deterred by the consequences of his actions.
Mandatory sentencing is expensive
* It costs $146.94 a day to imprison an adult
* It is estimated that almost $5 million dollars has been spent imprisoning
property offenders sentenced under mandatory sentencing laws.
* It costs $331.62 per day to detain a juvenile
* Juvenile detention increased by 53% in the 1997/98 financial year. This
represents additional spending of nearly $1 million dollars.
* Since 1996, the Correctional Services budget has increased by almost $8.5
million dollars. This is an increase of 26%.
* Darwin prison has had to undergo major expansion since the introduction of
mandatory sentencing laws. This represents a significant capital cost.
The community may not support mandatory sentencing
* Mandatory sentencing was initially very popular (especially in suburban
areas). However it, is not clear that the laws still enjoy that level of
support.
* During the 1998 Neighbourhood Watch Annual Conference, Neighbourhood Watch
delegates were asked to come up with a sentence in a number of property offence
cases. The cases were based on real examples.
* The results of these workshops indicate that most members of the public would
not goal minor property offenders.
Mandatory sentencing is harmful to the community
* All available evidence clearly shows that imprisoning young people at an early
stage in their development is damaging.
* Mandatory sentencing sends young first offenders to goal (17 years) and
juvenile second offenders to detention. It results in increased contact between
young people and more serious criminal elements.
* Northern Territory Correctional Services says: "The evidence is clear that the more access juveniles have to the criminal
justice system the more frequently and deeply they will penetrate it ... What
happens in many cases is that detainees learn from their fellow inmates how to
become more effective in committing crime."
* Mandatory sentencing could well lead to increased criminal activity among some
young people.
Mandatory sentencing is increasing the incarceration of Aboriginal people,
women and juveniles
* The Territory imprisons almost four times as many of its citizens as any other
State or Territory of Australia.
* Aboriginal people make up 73% of the Northern Territory's prison population.
* Between June 1996 and March 1999 adult imprisonment increased by 40%.
* Aboriginal juveniles make up over 75% of those detained in juvenile detention.
* In the 1997/98 financial year, the number of juvenile detainees increased by
53.3%. The number of women in prison in the NT has increased by 48.5%.
Mandatory Sentencing does not allow for judicial discretion
(Source: Law Society of the Northern Territory submission)
The Law Society of the NT is firmly of the view that the mandatory sentencing
regime is an unwarranted attack on the independence of the judiciary. An
independent judiciary is internationally recognised as a cornerstone of
democracy.
The loss of this judicial discretion has rendered the justice system incapable
of adequately dealing with a vast range of minor crimes, especially where
consideration of mitigating circumstances is vital. For example there is no
judicial discretion to take into consideration severe social breakdown. This has
occurred in parts of the NT where children as young as four are affected by the
petrol sniffing epidemic. This social problem results in the commission of minor
crimes, sometimes for basic necessities such as food, shelter and especially in
the winter, warm clothing.
One of the major effects of the mandatory sentencing regime on the system of
justice in the NT is the shifting of discretion from the judiciary to the police
and to a lesser extent to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Instead of discretion remaining with the magistrate or judge at the sentencing
stage, police are now making assessments at the charging stage.
Mandatory Sentencing Violates Human Rights and Breaches International Law
(source: NT Bar Association)
Mandatory sentencing infringes basic human rights when assessed by international
standards. Mandatory sentencing infringes Article 9(1) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in that mandatory determination for an
arbitrary range of property offences and violence offences can be properly
termed "arbitrary" within the meaning of the Article.
In respect of juveniles, mandatory sentencing infringes Articles 3 and 9 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child...
As the NT mandatory sentencing legislation offends these international
standards, the provisions may well fall for determination in the International
Human Rights Committee as being in breach of human rights, especially the human
rights of juveniles.
Mandatory sentencing contradicts the most fundamental finding of the Royal
Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, as well as many specific
recommendations. The key recommendation in this regard is: That governments which have not already done so should legislate to enforce the
principle that imprisonment should he utilised only as a sanction of last resort
(Recommendation 92)
Mandatory terms of detention and imprisonment for specific offences and types of
offenders in the NT and WA show the political and legislative shift in recent
years away from imprisonment as a sanction of last resort. Detention and
imprisonment is not used as a last resort sentencing option under mandatory
sentencing because the consideration of non-custodial sentencing options is
prevented, as is consideration of the specific circumstances of individual
offenders. It is patently ridiculous for States and Territories to claim that
imprisonment is used only as a sanction of last resort when mandatory sentencing
legislation unambiguously imposes imprisonment independent of any considerations
other than the offence type and prior record.
(ATSIC submission)
The National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Children from Their Families (1997) found that the high levels of
criminalisation and subsequent incarceration of Indigenous young people in
Australia effectively amounted to a new practice of forced separation of
Indigenous children and young people from their families. The failure to reform
juvenile justice law and practice, the failure to remedy the social justice
issues facing Indigenous youth, and the failure to respect the right of
self-determination of Indigenous people means that in practice the human rights
of Indigenous young people and their families are being abused. This abuse of
human rights parallels the earlier genocidal policy of assimilation.
ATSIC also believes that mandatory sentencing breaches:
* Conventions on the Rights of the Child
* International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
* The Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and
* The Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act.
Laws serve no good purpose
(back to top)
By Winsome Matthews
"I state the cultural responsibility of us all gathered here today In
giving acknowledgment to the traditional owners and their descendants of this
place -The Eora People whose land we are meeting on today. I would like to
welcome and thank you all for attending this most important event.
We are here to protest a serious injustice and breach of human rights occurring
in our country; I'm obviously talking about mandatory sentencing. The current
mandatory sentencing laws operating in the Northern Territory and Western
Australia are a blight on our country and a serious threat to the future of our
children. These punitive laws serve no good purpose only to criminalize our
young for the benefit of political expediency of a few who exploit the lowest
and basest fears of the community for their own gain.
Aboriginal young people are more likely to come from socially deprived
backgrounds and are more likely to be caught up in the criminal justice system;
they are more likely to be the subject of these laws than anyone else is. Time
and time again we have witnessed young Aboriginal people removed from kin,
country and culture and institutionalised for crimes worth little more than a
few dollars. We should not neglect the effect this will have on a generation of
our young people. Imprisoning young people not only removes them from their
families, it removes them from education, from training, from employment
opportunities and from general involvement in social life, it restricts their
development and limits their options. We know that Aboriginal
people who have criminal convictions are much less likely to get meaningful
employment and gain a decent standard of living.
These sentences are not just punishments that last for a fixed period of time;
they can have long lasting effects and carry the potential to set the direction
of a person's life. We should not then ignore the potential this has for our
young people's future, the potential for another stolen generation, lost to
their people and their culture, caught up in government institutions with little
hope and no future. This is the future mandatory sentencing will create unless
we stop it and stop it now.
It seems tragically ironic that Aboriginal people can have their land stolen,
their children ripped away, their languages destroyed and their heritage
belittled by the state without recompense,
without remorse, yet they are imprisoned by that same state for the most petty
infractions like stealing textas. There can be no sense of justice when this
injustice is so blatant.
Mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime, it does not deter young people from
committing offences, what it does do is to remove the freedoms, the self
respect, and the dignity from our young people by incarcerating them for the
most trivial matters. More than that it removes the compassion and the dignity
from our society; its practice belittles us all. We often say our children are
our future, but they are also our present and we have an obligation to care and
nurture them, to allow them to develop and learn from their errors, not to be
cast aside and forgotten. For all of our sakes we must stop mandatory
sentencing."
Support for the NPT in the Senate (back
to top)
Senator Cook moved:
- That the Senate
- notes
- the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference will be held at
the United Nations (UN) in New York from 24 April to 19 May 2000, and
- the declaration of the UN Secretary-General (Mr Kofi Annan) in February
2000 that the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation agenda is in a state of
"deplorable stagnation", that it is difficult to approach the NPT
Review Conference with optimism "given the discouraging list of nuclear
disarmament measures in suspense, negotiations not initiated and opportunities
not taken;' and that a dangerous nuclear arms race "looms on the
horizon".
- recalls:
- the conclusion of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear
Weapons that, 'The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in
perpetuity and never used - accidentally or by decision - defies credibility'
and that "the only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons
and assurance that they will never be produced again;' and
- the commission's observations that "Nuclear weapons are held by a
handful of states which insist that these weapons provide unique security
benefits, and yet reserve uniquely to themselves the right to own them. The
situation is highly discriminatory and thus unstable; it cannot be sustained.
The possession of nuclear weapon by any state is a constant stimulus to other
states to acquire them;
-
notes the unanimous finding of the International
Court of Justice in its 1996 Advisory Opinion that, "There exists a clear
obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations
leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective
international control;
-
affirms that the nuclear weapon states have an obligation to fulfil promptly
their undertaking under Article VI of the NPT to pursue negotiations in good
faith to eliminate their nuclear arsenals;
-
in the light of the above, urges that the nuclear weapon states reject the
indefinite possession of nuclear weapons and policies based on their possession,
unequivocally commit to the elimination of all nuclear weapons, and agree to
start work immediately on the practical steps and negotiations required to
achieve this goal;
-
calls on all parties at the NPT Review Conference to urge the nuclear weapon
states to commence and bring to the earliest possible conclusion negotiations to
bring about the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons and the full
safeguarding of military-useable nuclear material and;
-
urges that the practical steps toward nuclear disarmament outlined by the
commission and the Tokyo Forum for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament,
and advocated by the New Agenda Coalition of non-nuclear weapon states, be used
as a basis for immediate negotiations and action.
-
That the text of this resolution be conveyed to the UN Secretary-General, to
the Presidents of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, to the
Chairperson of the NPT Review Conference, to the Presidents, Prime Ministers and
Foreign Ministers of the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom,
France, India, Pakistan and Israel, and to the foreign ministers of all
non-nuclear weapon NPT signatory states.
Injustice of US Military Base Construction and
Prospect of Our Struggle (back to top)
Kazuo Kondo Secretary General
Action Committee for the Abrogation of Japan-US Security Treaty
Seventy-five percent of US military bases and facilities in Japan are
concentrated in Okinawa prefecture. It is in this small island prefecture where
construction of yet another US base is planned. For the giant Marine airbase,
the plan chose the Henoko district of Nago City In the northern part of Okinawa.
Plan of Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO):
On December 1996, in a final report of the Special Action Committee on Okinawa
on US Military Bases and facilities in Okinawa (SACO), the Governments of Japan
and the United States issued a plan to modernise US military bases in Okinawa.
Contrary to the two Governments' deceptive emphasis on the plan's feature for
scaling down US military bases in Okinawa, their actual aim is to refurbish the
half-century old bases for the 21st century in exchange for a petty reduction of
the bases' gross area.
One part of this colossal project involves the relocation of Futemma US Air
Station of US Marines, now sitting in the middle of densely populated Ginowan
City, into another part of Okinawa.
The Cutting-Edge Front Base of the Far East
The Japanese Government decided to dub the planned base "a substitute
facility" in an effort to portray its function as being much less
significant than it really is. It also decided to keep its mouth shut about the
prospected scale and method(s) of construction. However, what we find by piecing
together relevant news sources is a totally different kind of facility that is
neither so passive nor so gentle.
According to a plan of the US Department of Defense, the facility is to have a
durability of 200 years and at least 40 years of use. The Pentagon has also
decided to deploy MV 22 Ospreys, the latest aircraft with an ability to do
vertical take-offs and landings and fly high speed over long distance. The
facility's airstrip is reported to have a length of 3000 meters in order to
deploy large air-craft. In other words, the plan is to make a base for
intervention that allows US to conduct direct assaults on the Korean Peninsula
and the Taiwan Strait.
Opposition is inevitable
The Government has leaned on the administrations of Okinawa Prefecture and Nago
City in getting their acceptance, without giving any explanation on the
projected base, to which Mayor of Nago, Tateo Kishimoto succumbed by the end of
last year. The mayor's decision runs counter to the outcome of the referendum
held 2 years ago, in which a majority of Nago citizens rejected the plan. In
announcing his decision, Kishimoto justified his acceptance by saying that he
had made a bargain with the central government and would "take back"
the approval if Tokyo did not live up to the deal. Though the terms of the
bargain appear to be quite vague, it does include one concrete condition to
"limit the use of the base to a maximum of 15 years?' This accords with a
commitment the Governor of Okinawa, Keuchi Inamine made during his election
campaign.
At a talk with his US counterpart of Jan, 6 this year, however, the Director
General of Japan's Defense Agency only conveyed "the will of Okinawa"
to limit the base use of 15-years and stopped short of seeking any consultation
on the issue. Of its own accord the Government dropped the item from the talk's
agenda by reasoning its act for "the difficulty in foreseeing future
international situations". With this statement the Government declared that
it has fulfilled its duty to Okinawa and announced that it would seek no further
talks with the US on the issue.
Even after the Government's announcement, the mayor remains supportive of the
project while keeping his empty promise of the "15-year-use He asserts that
"the 15-year-use is only part of the whole deal I made with the central
government." The mayor's unfaithful attitude to its citizens had led to a
campaign to recall Kishimoto from office and given momentum for the development
of the forces opposed to the military base.
Blatant Destruction of Environmental Heritage
Besides the roaring sound of jets, the danger of their crashing and crimes
committed by US servicepersons, the Marine airbase casts yet another sobering
problem; destruction of the fragile and precious ecosystem of northern Okinawa.
The planned construction site, Henoko District, is a habitat of coral and
Japanese born dugongs, and its surrounding forest called Yambaru is a home of
precious fauna and flora. It is only evident that the planned construction of
the base would destroy the invaluable natural environment. Strong concerns
expressed by environmental groups in and out of Okinawa, including World
Wildlife Fund Japan, to the project have added the ecological preservation
aspect to the development of the opposition movement.
This July the Group of Seven industrialised nations will hold its Summit
Conference in Nago, Okinawa. It is said that behind the decision was the
Japanese Government's shrewd intention to sell the summit and buy the city's
acceptance of the base construction.
Yet, the Summit appears to be producing an unexpected outcome for the
government.' World media has turned its attention to the issue of 'military
bases in Okinawa, thus making it inevitable that the bases' outrageous nature
will be exposed before the world. Washington Post reporter D Struck was right
when he said that the idea of showing the bases to reporters is wise. Problems
associated with bases of that scale are things that cannot be hidden forever. It
is an extraordinary reality that an island of a sovereign nation has suffered
for more than half a century, where the foreign military force brazenly occupy
vast amounts of its land and the people are compelled to live with the dingers
posed by its presence. The issue of the US military presence in this country is
about to become another focus of the Okinawa Summit. It is from here that a new
international solidarity for the reduction and withdrawal of military bases on
the island is about to emerge.
Israeli Lawmakers Hold Quick Debate on Nuclear Arms
(back to top)
By Deborah Sontag
Israel's Parliament begrudgingly held its first public discussion in more than
35 years about the country's long-secret nuclear arms programs, and the usually
loquacious body had so little to say that the debate was over in 52 minutes.
Parliament's speaker, Avraham Burg, tried to limit raucous catcalling in order,
he said, "to put this subject behind us as quickly as possible."
Indeed, despite verbal fire between Jewish and Israeli Arab legislators, the
whole affair took less time than the debate about prostitution that immediately
preceded it. After decades of silence, old habits were hard to break.
Israel has a longstanding policy of "deliberate ambiguity" about its
nuclear weapons, and politicians on the left and right have helped keep the lid
on any public conversation about what The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
calls the sixth-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
"What happened here reaffirms the fact that Israelis do not want to talk
about this issue and that the inhibition is self-imposed rather than imposed by
censorship", said Avner Cohen, a senior fellow at the National Security
Archive in Washington who wrote "Israel and the Bomb" (Columbia
University Press). "This is perhaps the last Israeli taboo."
Mr Burg allowed the discussion after an Israeli Arab legislator, Issam Makhul,
petitioned the Supreme Court to request it. Speaking from the podium, Mr Makhul
opened by declaring a "historic day" as rightist legislators marched
out as a group. "You're my enemy", one legislator, Zvi Hendel, spat at
Mr Makhul as he was leaving.
In the face of court cases challenging its secrecy, the government has started
to modify its traditional refusal to say anything about its nuclear arms
programs. Government officials have made terse statements about nuclear policy,
and in November the government allowed a newspaper to publish censored excerpts
from the treason trial 12 years ago of a whistle-blower on the nuclear industry,
Mordechai Vanunu.
After the publication, Mr Makhul pushed for an open airing of the issue in
Parliament, whose sessions are broadcast on cable television and some Israelis
eagerly looked "forward to what they imagined would be a
"precedent-setting discussion of Israel's nuclear policies," said
Danny Rubenstein, a senior writer for the newspaper Haaretz.
But Mr Rubenstein predicted correctly that Mr Makhul and his Communist Party
would "stand ostracised, facing the Parliament alone, thereby reinforcing
the perception of the nuclear issue as a trivial curiosity that is of interest
only to extremists."
Mr Makhul began by attacking David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister.
He criticised Ben-Gurion for establishing the code of silence by insisting from
the start that Israel's nuclear reactor, in Dimona, was intended solely for
"research and peaceful purposes."
"The whole world knows," Mr Makhul said, "that Israel is a large
warehouse of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons." He asserted that
only Israeli citizens were kept in the dark about Israel's nuclear arsenal some
200 to 300 warheads, he said - and conditions at the aging Dimona reactor. He
declared that Iran and Iraq were "threatened by Dimona", and not the
other way around.
Representing the government, Chain Ramon, a cabinet minister and the only other
speaker, asked him, "Do you want us to announce to Iran and Iraq exactly
what we have?" Even in other democratic countries, Mr Ramon asserted,
discussion about nuclear arms policy is limited and Israel should not have to
"invite all our enemies to listen in."
There is not total secrecy: Israeli legislators are briefed in detail about the
nuclear program in closed-door classified committee meetings, and some tour the
Dimona plant. But there has been no discussion on the floor of Parliament since
the early 1960's when similar attempts at airing the subject failed. Mr Ramon
stated what he said were the guiding principles of Israel's nuclear policy:
· Israel will not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
· Israel, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, supports,
in principle, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, even though
international support of the concept has been ineffective in curtailing Iranian
and Iraqi weapons production.
· Israel supports the creation of a region free of nuclear weapons and
ballistic missiles once there is a "proven peace over a sustained period of
time."
Although many representatives of international antinuclear groups and foreign
governments attended the midday session, few Israeli politicians sat through it,
Mr Makhul acknowledged the presence of representatives of Egypt, which has taken
the lead among Arab countries in pressing Israel to open its nuclear arms
program to international inspection.
Source: The New York Times
Back to Top
| 
