|
|
|
WEB SPACE kindly donated by
|
March / April 2001
Iraq Ten Years On (back to top)by Jane HowarthAt last, after ten long years, the odious, criminal sanctions regime is eroding. This hateful regime can no longer bear the weight of its iniquitous imposts. The recent moves to end Iraq's isolation are cracking open the wall which has contained Iraq in poverty and misery for the past ten years. The cracks, first opened by Ramsey Clark and the International Action Center with their blockade breaking visits to Iraq, widen by the week. The recent moves, though mainly symbolic, still spell the end of containment and isolation. The regional and international mood has changed. Concern for the plight of Iraq's people, the deaths of over half a million children and the sheer immoral savagery of the sanctions has finally hit home. The sad part is that it has taken so long. And, will take even longer before there is substantial change. Baghdad's international airport is open. Flights between Baghdad and Basra are operating. A tentative trickle of flights from Russia and France has become a constant stream which now includes Jordan, Turkey, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Spain, Portugal, China. All bringing medical supplies for the people of Iraq. A coup for Iraq has been a visit by Iran's foreign minister Kamal Kharrizi who came in an Iran Air jet. This visit, the first in ten years, will probably lead to a revival of air links between the two nations. But above all it marks the demise of the American policy of "dual containment". This policy, put in place after the Gulf War, was meant to isolate Iran and Iraq. They were designated "rogue states", not fit to be part of the "international community". The policy was designed to allow America unchallenged power in the region. It is ironic that the instigator of the policy of "dual containment", Martin Indyk, is himself now in trouble, having been accused of breaching US security. Indyk, a pro-Israel zealot, active in promoting Israel's interests in America, became an American citizen in 1993. Immediately after this, Clinton appointed him as the Middle East expert on the National Security Council. He was made ambassador to Israel in 1995, the first Jewish envoy in the position. Indyk moulded the Clinton administration's Middle East policy. Oil RevenuesFor ten years Iraq, with its assets frozen and no incoming revenues from oil sales, has suffered acute financial depredation. Now modest changes on the oil front are bringing some relief. But the plunder of the country's economy continues. The UN Compensation Commission, operating from Geneve on a highly dubious legal basis, and dominated by the US, takes a third of the revenue from "oil for food" sales. This money pays reparations to Kuwait, and other countries claiming against Iraq. Last year Kuwait was paid $15.9 billion in a single payment. Kuwait is claiming over $300 billion. Half this amount is equivalent to nine times Kuwait's gross domestic product for 1989. France and Russia, at first, blocked the $15.9 billion payout, but gave in, in return for minor changes. And that the amount deducted from Iraq's oil revenues for compensation be reduced from 30% to 25%. The changes do not alter the scandalous nature of the looting of Iraq's oil revenues and, as a consequence, its economy. Also, the reduction to 25% will prolong the time taken to lift the compensation debt. The conditions governing the work / payouts etc of the Compensation Commission are highly irregular. It is amazing that they have not been challenged. One has to ask where are all the international law experts hiding? Why has so little publicity been given to the extraordinary aspects of this UN body? A body which takes, and spends, Iraq's oil monies but will not allow Iraq to spend any of its money to defend itself against the claims. Each year $50 million is deducted from Iraq's oil monies to pay all the UNCC expenses. These include travel expenses, all procedural expenses, fees of "experts" hired by the Commission and generous fees to Commissioners. Iraq is denied all rights, right of appeal, right to question claims and decisions made. Iraq is not even informed of all the claims, nor has it the right to make comments to the Commission. America, a so-called "democracy", all too eager to force its version of "human rights" and "democracy" on others would be raising the roof had the circumstances been different. As for the United Nations, we should be questioning its role as judge and jury, while at the same time denying Iraq the right to defence lawyers. This can hardly be described as good legal practice. One law firm, with a former professor of international law on its staff, filed a request to defend Iraq. Payment to be made from UNCC funds. The request was rejected. So, Iraq must pay every cent but cannot access the "experts" findings, defend itself against them, or comment on them. Mohammad al-Douri, Iraq's ambassador the the UN in Geneva, a professor of international law, says he works "under an embargo". Iraq is prevented from voting at the UN because it has not paid its dues. Iraq asked that the money owing be deducted from oil revenues. The request was rejected. In a civilized society this would seen for what it is, sheer bloody mindedness. And the level of hypocrisy should be noted. America, which has never fully paid its dues, now owes over $1 billion. But America has not been disenfranchised. Meanwhile the oil price rise has put Iraq in a stronger position. Iraq is in a better position to bargain, as the interests of western powers, America and Britain in particular, are tied to oil output and price. Iraq can create major problems for Europe and America by a well timed halt to its oil exports. This would reduce global output by around two million barrels a day. The OPEC states would have difficulty making up this volume. Iraq receives no cash in hand from its oil sold under the UN oil-for-food scheme. This money goes into a bank account in New York and is apportioned by the UN Committee, dominated by America. Recent events, though, give hope of a revenue return to Iraq. Iraq is gaining oil revenues through sales of oil smuggled through Iran and Turkey. These nations, like others in the region, want and end to the crippling sanctions. Turkey estimates its losses from trade with Iraq, a major trading partner, pre-war, in billions. Iran is supplying ships to transport Iraq's oil. Iran is not doing this for purely altruistic reasons, it is receiving a generous commission for its pains. But Iran also wants an end to sanctions. Iraq has renegotiated the price for oil sold to Jordan. Jordan, because of its proximity to Iraq has, from the beginning, been given special dispensation allowing it to buy its oil from Iraq. This has always been at a price very favourable to Jordan. Under the new terms Jordan will pay more. Previously the Jordanian government had been able to dictate the terms and Iraq had acquiesced. Now, with other outlets and other governments lining up deals with Iraq, Iraq can set some terms of its own. One notable example was the issuing of a blacklist of 80 Jordanian firms that have "normalised" relations with Israel. This leads one to speculate that if other Arab states were to follow Iraq's example the Palestinian position would be less dire. A long disused pipeline between Iraq and Syria has been opened. A report from the Guardian Weekly says Syria will refine Iraqi oil to sell for domestic use. In Iraq, a spokesman hinted that oil supplies could soon start going to Lebanon. A branch of the pipeline to Syria goes to the Lebanese port of Tripoli. At the end of last year Iraq pressed for a 40 cents per barrel surcharge on exports to be paid into its account. The UN refused. However a report in Middle East International (22/12/2000) says some of Iraq's oil customers have undertaken to make "under the table" payments direct to Baghdad as well as the sums they deposit with the UN. As Iraq can choose its clients this would seem to leave room for Iraq to be more selective in choosing them. A report in Al-Quds al-Arabi (29/9/2000) says a number of Saudi companies are competing for deals and contracts with Iraq. One wonders whether they are acting on their own behalf or as surrogates for America. When the siege of Iraq finally ends America will excluded from the lucrative deals on offer. Depleted UraniumTen years after America tested its depleted uranium (DU) weapons in its nuclear war against Iraq the deaths of European soldiers, who served in the Balkans, has focussed attention on these weapons. Yet Iraq's claims linking a fivefold increase in cancers and high levels of childhood leukaemia to the use of DU weapons were ignored or denied. Even doctors and scientists who visited Iraq to observe and check the claims, were given no credence when their reports appeared to support Iraq. But European soldiers dying from leukaemia, cancers and other illnesses is a different story. A story which has become big news with governments and "experts" of all colours involved. The US and Britain fired thousands of DU penetrator rounds from tanks and aircraft during the war against Iraq. These two nations did the same during NATO's war against Serbia and during the war in Bosnia. But the present furore which has followed the use of DU weapons in the Balkans has concentrated on the fate of the soldiers. Little has been said about the civilian population who face future medical consequences. A stream of "expert" soothsayers have been produced by, or are quoted by, those making the case for the US and Britain. All bent on down-playing the risks associated with DU and dismissing any connection to the current spate of deaths. At the same time a flood of leaked documents are giving the lie to this. The Times of London has a 1989 document in which a top US health official warns of the adverse health effects of DU. The BBC has a leaked Pentagon document from 1993, which details the dangers of DU. It should be remembered that the US kept quiet about Agent Orange. In fact, it denied for years that Agent Orange was the cause of severe health problems suffered by many of its Vietnam veterans. Or for the birth defects in their children. There are other examples of America's duplicity but this alone is reason enough to say that scientists who rush to deny links to DU and cancers are suspect. Professor Malcolm Hooper, professor emeritus of chemistry at the university of Sunderland in the UK, in a BBC interview said that the US and Britain have always known that DU is carcinogenic and toxic. He said their military manuals recorded this in 1974. Professor Hooper also said they were using the wrong model in their testing. They were not testing for uranium from depleted uranium which, he explained, needs properly qualified people to do the tests. They are testing for naturally occurring uranium. And, because there are not enough qualified people to do these tests, they are using people who are not qualified. Highly ToxicDepleted uranium (DU) is the highly toxic and radioactive by-product of the uranium enrichment process. "Depleted" is a misnomer. It is meant to give the impression that it is not harmful. Depleted uranium is about 60% as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium and has a half life of 4.5 billion years. It is called "depleted" because the fissionable U-235 isotope, used in the uranium enrichment process (for nuclear reactors and weapons), is reduced during the process. Isotope U-238 is the excess or waste uranium which remains. It has a very specific property. It is extremely dense and will penetrate heavily armoured vehicles and fortifications. Depleted uranium burns on impact. It creates immense heat which incinerates the contact material, tanks during the Gulf War, including those inside. It releases fine aerosol-like particles which can be inhaled, are carried by the wind, enter the soil and soil water and on into the food chain. After being inhaled or ingested uranium can be transported by the blood to body organs and blood cells, thus exposing all to its carcinogenic effects. America has over one billion pounds of DU waste material. After 50 years of enriching uranium for reactors and weapons, the government was searching for ways to dispose of the waste, other than in repositories. Tests showed how it could be used in munitions. And the army found that DU incorporated into the armour of tanks made them almost impenetrable by conventional weapons. In the US excess DU is given, free, to arms manufacturers. DU weapons have been sold to Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and a host of other nations. Uranium is a heavy metal, like mercury, cadmium and lead it is highly toxic. The human body should not have contact with it. Since the war against Iraq unusual pathological cases have appeared in Iraq. As noted, there has been an abnormal increase in cancers: cancers of the blood, the lungs, the digestive system and the skin. There has also been an increase in congenital diseases and birth defects. Of the thousands of DU rounds fired by Britain and America in the Gulf War only about 10% of the debris has been removed. The remainder still litters the area, or it has been covered by sand. Sand blown by the wind. The toxic substances lie below ground and when it rains enter the soil water. In Kuwait, Bedouins from areas used as training grounds by US troops reported that hundreds of camels, sheep and birds had died in the desert. Saudi Arabia demanded that all war materials containing DU, on its soil, be removed. The material was taken to the US. But before it was removed much of it had been buried in the desert. America, Britain and their NATO cohorts will prevaricate and fabricate, do anything but come clean on this issue. America, in particular, will not relinquish DU weapons unless public pressure forces other governments to ban their use. These weapons must be banned. They should never have been produced in the first place. They are far worse than so-called weapons of mass destruction which, despite all the extravagant claims, are difficult to use and difficult to deliver. DU weapons with their toxic and radioactive properties must be banned to prevent further pollution of the earth. Now it seems, Israel has used them. The International Action Center is calling for international organisations to investigate weapons used by the Israeli military in the West Bank and Gaza. The IAC believes depleted uranium weapons have been used. The Palestinians believe the weapons have been used on at least one occasion. That was the destruction of the headquarters of the Palestinian police in Gaza. This new, solidly constructed building was reduced to rubble. Palestinians say examination of metal pieces from weapons used in the attack indicate that DU weapons were used. The German Defence Minister has told Parliament (21/1/01) that the US has admitted, for the first time, that DU weapons also contain plutonium. He also said that DU had been tested at sites in Germany by US and German soldiers as part of NATO training. On 1/3/91, the day after the Gulf War ceasefire, a memo from Los Alamos National Laboratory, titles "The effectiveness of depleted uranium" points out the value of these weapons. It goes on to say "There has been and continues to be a concern regarding the impact of DU on the environment. Therefore if no one makes a case for the effectiveness of DU on the battlefield, DU rounds may become politically unacceptable and deleted from the arsenal. I believe we should keep this sensitive issue in mind when action reports are written." Obscene freaks are designing these immoral death-dealing weapons. Weapons which kill, maim and poison civilians and contaminate the environment. And in Iraq, where no help has been given and no clean-up done, children play with spent uranium shells and projectiles. America uses depleted uranium because it is a cheap means of disposing of large quantities of its nuclear waste. The metal tungsten could readily replace DU. It has the same properties as DU without being carcinogenic or toxic. But tungsten is expensive. In ConclusionThe reincarnation of George Bush in the form of the son George W gives faint hopes for a dramatic policy change. But then a Gore presidency would have seen more of the same. Gore has been a consistent supporter of the use of force. He and Lieberman were two of only ten Democrats in the Senate to vote for the resolution authorising the air war against Iraq. Lieberman pushed for ground troops to drive Saddam Hussein from power, even though that would have violated the resolution on the intervention. Gore was an ardent supporter of continued air strikes against Iraq and of the no-fly zones. The rhetoric coming from Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell is not encouraging. Powell talks of "tightening the sanctions on Iraq" while Bush is describing Saddam Hussein as a big threat who must be contained by force if necessary. The Iraqis say they do not expect the hostile US policy to change. It is interesting to note that on the 10th anniversary of the Gulf War a host of discredited has-beens, with links to US intelligence, have been resuscitated. Prominent among them, Richard Butler, still playing his old tune of Iraq as a "threat" to the world. Another, David Albright, says sanctions must remain because of "the prospect of Iraq's future threat to Israel". If it wasn't so sick it would be laughable. Reports (24/1/01) in the American press over the last 7 days are saying that Iraq has rebuilt two buildings destroyed soon after the Gulf War. The buildings were said to have been used to make weapons of mass destruction. Now the US press is engaging in a grand beat-up, with claims that new stocks of these weapons are being manufactured. Bush is talking tough saying the US will move to "take out" these sites. It is reminiscent of the early days of the Clinton presidency. Clinton, anxious to establish his trigger happy war fighting credentials loosed off 23 Cruise missiles at Baghdad. All on a trumped-up pretext of a plot to kill George Bush, who was visiting Kuwait. The missile strike killed civilians including Iraq's most famous, and world renowned, artist, Leila al-Attar. One has to ask whether George W. plans to emulate his predecessor. William Jefferson Clinton used military force overseas more often than any US president in two decades. And that includes Ronald Reagan. Meanwhile the dirty war continues. A war ignored by the media and the UN. The almost daily bombing of Iraq by Britain and America since December 1998 has killed over 300 Iraqis and wounded 956. The warplanes have fired some 456 missiles with a total weight of 960 tonnes. The targets have included homes, residential suburbs, flocks of sheep and the oil pipeline to Turkey. On 29/1/01 another 6 people were killed in an air attack, and a warehouse was destroyed. This is not the first time a store house has been destroyed. On a previous occasion a warehouse containing foods imported under food-for-oil was destroyed. That the lap-dog press and the UN remain silent in the face of this deadly war is scandalous and outrageous. That Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey allow their bases to be used for these criminal attacks is shameful. And the world watches while the American President and Britain's Prime Minister talk about "rogue states". The irony is overwhelming. Turkey is still invading Northern Iraq even though the PKK is no longer active. The latest incursion took place in early January and the troops are still there. January 25 saw more attacks by US and British warplanes on areas in Iraq. The so-called no-fly zones or "safe havens" which these two rogue states patrol are anything but safe for those living within their boundaries. A question mark hangs over the next four years for the Middle East. The Bush team with its strange assortment of principal players seem to be looking for a renewal of confrontation with Iraq. Bush's chief advisor on national security Condoleezza Rice has asserted that the US will "deal decisively" with North Korea and Iraq. There is talk of plans to resurrect the Iraqi opposition; to destabilize Iraq, and even of a break-up of the Iraqi state. If true, the next four years will not be "bringing people together". But one thing is sure, the powerful Jewish lobby and the "friends of Israel" in the US will see to it that "Israeli security" is the over-riding concern of US Middle East policy. (Jane Howarth is convenor of Save the Children of Iraq Mandatory Sentencing must be Overturned (back to top)On behalf of our members the APC wrote the following letter to the Attorney General the Hon. Daryl Williams. "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. This is the case in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory where the reality of mandatory sentencing hangs like a noose over the heads of young people who, in most cases are Aborigines and have committed quite paltry crimes. Mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime. Mandatory sentencing does not deter crime. Mandatory sentencing does not allow for judicial discretion. Mandatory sentencing violates human rights and breaches international law. Although the Federal Government has put in place diversionary programs the APC believes that mandatory sentencing is an unjust law and urges the Federal Government to overturn this law as it has done with the Northern Territory Government's Euthanasia Law." Reply"Your letter seeks to highlight the disadvantage faced by Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the impact of mandatory sentencing laws on indigenous Australians. The Government recognises the problems faced by indigenous Australians and is spending a record $2.3 billion in the 2000-2001 financial year on programs to address the social and economic disadvantages of indigenous people. A number of these funding initiatives are specifically intended to address the causes on indigenous over-representation in the criminal justice system. In relation to the sentencing of offenders, States and Territories have a difficult job in dealing with the impact of crime and the problem of repeat offenders, however the Commonwealth Government believes that these are issues which the State and Territories are best placed to address. The Commonwealth recognises that the Western Australian and Northern Territory Governments have considered it appropriate to introduce mandatory detention laws in order to deal specifically with repeat offending. The operation of mandatory detention laws poses difficult and complex problems. In the circumstances the Government does not support using Commonwealth powers to override State and Territory mandatory detention laws. The problems associated with juvenile offending and detention cannot be resolved without action from the State and Territory Governments. Simply dictating that laws should be removed does nothing to deal with the complicated and serious problems that gave rise to the perceived need for mandatory detention laws in the first place. However, the Government is concerned that mandatory detention laws may have a disproportionately harsh on effect on young people and has indicated its willingness to work with States and Territories to ensure that Commonwealth rehabilitation and education programs for young people are effective in preventing offending by addressing the causes of juvenile crime. The Commonwealth's concern in relation to this issue is not motivated by international obligations or by expressed international views, but by a concern to ensure that children are protected in their dealings with the legal system. As a result of its concern, the Commonwealth has entered into an agreement with the Northern Territory Government under which the Commonwealth will pay $5 million per year for four years to enable funding for:
Socio-economic Indicators (back to top)
Source: ABS, The Health and Welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (Cat No. 4/04.00) 1999. Rattling the Chains of Debt (back to top)The Jubilee Australia Debt Relief Campaign, by Mark Zirnsak"My dear friends, at the end of this extraordinary year, a flame of hope has been kindled in the poorest countries of the world.... It could not have happened without the courage, commitment and creativity of the Jubilee 2000 Coalition. On behalf of the United Nations, I extend my deep gratitude to you for your indefatigable efforts. At the end of this Millennium year, millions of people are indebted to you." Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, in a message to the Jubilee 2000 farewell rally in London, 2 December 2000. The Jubilee 2000 Debt Relief Campaign made significant progress on the road to having the unpayable component of Third World debts cancelled for the benefit of some of the world's poorest people. However, the First World creditors failed to deliver on the cancellation of the unpayable part of developing country debt by the end of 2000. Jubilee Australia replaces the Australian Jubilee 2000 Debt Relief Campaign, which finished on 31 December 2000, and will work closely with Jubilee International Plus. The aim is to hold the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Band and First World creditors accountable to deliver on the promises of debt relief they have made. Jubilee Australia will also be seeking to persuade the Australian Government to go further in terms of the debt relief it is willing to grant to poor countries that owe Australia money. What Jubilee 2000 AchievedDebt relief for the world's poorest people is now firmly on the global agenda. After receiving petitions with 17 million signatures in support of the Jubilee 2000 Campaign, the G7 meeting in Cologne in June 1999 agreed to a further US$45 billion of debt relief. Since then the US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Canada, the People's Republic of China, Australia and others have promised to cancel some of the bilateral debts owed directly to them by heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs). The debt relief is conditional on the money released from debt service being used to alleviate poverty. Australia has effectively cancelled the $6.3 million owed by Nicaragua to Australia and has promised to eventually cancel the $12.7 million that Ethiopia owes. In the mean time, the Australian Government continues to collect debt repayments from Ethiopia. The Gross National Product per head per year in Ethiopia is the lowest in the whole of Africa at US$100. The Australian Government has committed $55 million to help debt relief through the IMF and World Bank HIPC Initiative. Areas of ConcernThey are some significant concerns that what the G7 promised is still not enough:
At the end of 2000, 22 countries had qualified for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative. Of these, 16 will still be spending more on debt repayments than on health after the debt relief is implemented. On average these countries will have their debt repayments reduced by only 29%. Collectively they will still pay US$2 billion per year in debt service, which is over one and a half times as much as they will spend on health care. The needs of these countries are great. According to the World Bank, some 300 million Africans live on barely US 65 cents per day. Mauritania will still be paying US$63 million on debt repayments after debt relief, compared to US$51 million on education and US$17 million on health. Mauritania has an adult illiteracy rate of 62%. Jubilee 2000 believed that there were 52 poor and indebted countries in urgent need of debt relief, but only 36 of these are eligible for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative. The limitation of the HIPC Initiative is based on the level of debt relief First World creditors are willing to grant, instead of the level of human need in these countries. A number of the developed country creditors have recognised the need to grant debt relief beyond the 36 countries eligible under the HIPC Initiative. Italy has promised to grant debt relief to up to 62 poor countries, the People's Republic of China to 44 and the UK to up to 41. Future Campaign DirectionThe global campaign feels the need to continue pressuring creditor governments to support conditional debt relief, so that debt repayments do not keep people in poverty. In Australia, the campaign continues to gather significant momentum. In excess of 450,000 Australians signed the global petition in support of the campaign, making this the largest petition on an international issue in Australia's history. On the negative side, the Australian Government has failed to consider debt relief for Vietnam, a World Bank and IMF recognised heavily indebted poor country that owes Australia $39 million directly. Vietnam is currently not eligible to be granted debt relief through the HIPC Initiative, due to the limited debt relief granted so far by the developed world creditors. UNICEF reports that 39% of children under 5 in Vietnam are suffering malnutrition and 45% are anaemic. Only 66% of children in Vietnam complete primary school, partly due to the removal of government subsidies as Vietnam has bowed to international pressure to economically "reform". Australia is also owed money directly by three poor countries in need of debt relief in our region, Bangladesh which owes Australia $21 million, Nepal which owes $10 million and the Philippines which owes $319 million. The aims of the Australian campaign are now to persuade Australian politicians to:
What you can doAnyone interested learning more about the campaign or helping to achieve debt cancellation for some of the world's poorest people, should contact the Jubilee Australia office at (03) 9815 1677, e-mail jubilee@tear.org.au or visit the website www.jubileeaustralia.org.au (Mark Zirnaskis is the Social Justice Development Officer, Uniting Church in Australia (Victoria)) Interview with Jubilee 2000 Africa Director Kwesi Owusu (back to top)Since its launch four years ago, the Jubilee 2000 campaign - an international coalition of churches, civil society and non-government organisations (NGOs) - has emerged as a major advocate of debt relief for developing countries. "We've been pretty successful in pushing the debt issue onto the world's agenda", Jubilee 2000 Africa Initiative Director Kwesi Owusu told Africa Recovery. "We've mobilized a huge constituency in Africa and around the world. Our last signature campaign totalled 21.2 million people for debt cancellation." One of the major successes of the Jubilee effort, said the US based Ghanaian activist, is that "the issue of debt has changed the context of the discussion around African development. We have linked debt to poverty, and by extension to poverty reduction. Dent has been used as a leverage to push through structural adjustment programs - to pry open markets, lower trade tariffs and create a situation where there's a free flow of capital. We are completely against structural adjustment programs because they are at odds with the objectives of poverty alleviation." The only condition the campaign supports, he noted, is the popular conditionality that (debt relief) monies are released into poverty alleviation programs. "This process should be transparent to ensure that local elites are accountable to their own people." Uganda debt campaigners "have actually been involved in managing the poverty action fund with the government, and have monitored how funds released through debt relief have been used. That is an excellent model", Mr Owusu asserted, "and I think other campaigns are looking at it very closely". Jubilee supports the inclusion of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) process because it required consultation between governments and civil society, he explained, "even though the process is taking too long and has held back" debt reduction. The real problem with HIPC, he maintained is that the process is too political and too limited. "There are countries in critical need of debt relief that are not in the HIPC process. Nigeria is certainly an example .... If HIPS is implemented fully, we are talking about only a third of Africa's total debt cancelled." Since the launch of the Jubilee Africa Initiative in Accra in April 1998, he explained, national campaigns have been established in 20 African countries. "The activists are really doing sterling work. They travel around using drama groups and films. In Uganda and Cameroon they translate all our literature into local languages. They are very much linked to adult education programmes. Mobilisation through the church has been fantastic." The work of Jubilee 2000 Secretariat in Africa, he said, "has been two-fold: working with campaigns and working with governments. We have always criticised African governments for a lack of leadership on this issue, but in the past year, we have seen many leaders becoming pro-active". Mr Owusu described Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria as "even more radical than Jubilee 2000 calling for total and absolute debt cancellation". The UN also "has played a very useful role in bringing together all the leaders who have been championing debt cancelation." December 31 marked the formal end of the Jubilee 2000 campaign. But the drive for debt relief, Mr Owusu said, would continue. "The successor organisation will be called Jubilee Plus. We have a special initiative ... to mobilise our entire international network for deeper debt relief" at the Group of Seven meeting in Genoa in July 2001. "Jubilee Plus is also going to look more at the causes of debt... We want to be more sophisticated in terms of how we generate development in Africa ... At the end of the day, it's the political (arena) that will generate the changes." Source: Africa Recovery Nuclear News (back to top)The US continues to conduct subcritical nuclear tests that are detonated underground using explosives and fissile material. These tests are not considered full nuclear weapons tests because no nuclear chain reaction occurs. Reports indicate, however, that the plutonium used in these tests is bombarded so hard that pieces shatter into particles of dust that are carried from the underground test chamber into groundwater and outward. In their quest to continue testing despite the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, US scientists have also developed a three-dimensional simulation of detonations that produces the explosive output of thermonuclear weapons. This allows scientists to follow the activity of a thermonuclear warhead on a computer as it explodes. Previously, this could only be done by an actual underground test. The simulation programs are part of the Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship program. Both subcritical testing and simulation testing allow the US to develop new nuclear weapons. |
Site updated
|
|
Opinions expressed on this website do not necessarily reflect those of the APC
This site Copyright of the Australian Peace Committee , contact
APC-SA |
