While the G20
club of global leaders meet in Hamburg today, and even more important
meeting will end at the United Nations
in New York after three weeks of painstaking
negotiations - concluding with an earth-shattering
global ban on nuclear weapons (“A giant step towards a nuclear free world is in
reach – but will it be sabotaged at the last minute?” www.opendemocracy.net/uk/rebecca-johnson/giant-step-towards-nuclear-free-world-is-in-reach-but-will-it-be-sabotaged-at-las)
Here is the final text of the treaty they have negotiated, under positive
pressure for several years of brilliant lobbying from many disarmament NGOs,
led by the estimable and indefatigable ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish
nuclear Weapons)
I
played a small part in this process, attending the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian
Impact of Nuclear Weapons in the Austrian Capital in December 2014, sponsored
by the Austrian Foreign Ministry, which produced the following declaration at the
end of an extraordinary diplomatic meeting, boycotted by the UK, but attended
by the United States.
Pledge presented at the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact
of Nuclear Weapons by Austrian Deputy
Foreign Minister Michael Linhart
Having hosted and chaired the
Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons from 8-9
December 2014 and in light of the important facts and findings that have been
presented at the international conferences in Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna,
Austria, solely in her national capacity, and without binding any other
participant, wants to go beyond the summary just read out. After careful
consideration of the evidence, Austria has come to the following inescapable
conclusions and makes the subsequent pledge to take them forward with
interested parties in available fora, including in the context of the NPT and
its upcoming 2015 Review Conference:
Mindful of the unacceptable harm
that victims of nuclear weapons explosions and nuclear testing have experienced
and recognising that the rights and needs of victims have not yet been adequately
addressed,
Understanding that the immediate,
mid- and long-term consequences of a nuclear weapon explosion are significantly
graver than it was understood in the past and will not be constrained by
national borders but have regional or even global effects, potentially
threatening the survival of humanity,
Recognizing the complexity of and
interrelationship between these consequences on health, environment,
infrastructure, food security, climate, development, social cohesion and the
global economy that are systemic and potentially irreversible,
Aware that the risk of a nuclear
weapon explosion is significantly greater than previously assumed and is indeed
increasing with increased proliferation, the lowering of the technical
threshold for nuclear weapon capability, the ongoing modernisation of nuclear
weapon arsenals in nuclear weapon possessing states, and the role that is
attributed to nuclear weapons in the nuclear doctrines of possessor states,
Cogniscent of the fact that the
risk of nuclear weapons use with their unacceptable consequences can only be
avoided when all nuclear weapons have been eliminated,
Emphasizing that the consequences
of a nuclear weapon explosion and the risks associated with nuclear weapons
concern the security of all humanity and that all states share the
responsibility to prevent any use of nuclear weapons,
Emphasizing that the scope of
consequences of a nuclear weapon explosion and risks associated raise profound
moral and ethical questions that go beyond debates about the legality of
nuclear weapons,
Mindful that
no national or international response capacity exists that would adequately
respond to the human suffering and humanitarian harm that would result from a
nuclear weapon explosion in a populated area, and that such capacity most
likely will never exist,
Affirming that it is in the
interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used
again, under any circumstances,
Reiterating the crucial role that
international organisations, relevant UN entities, the Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement, elected representatives, academia and civil society play for
advancing the shared objective of a nuclear weapon free world,
Austria regards it as her
responsibility and consequently pledges to present the facts-based discussions,
findings and compelling evidence of the Vienna Conference, which builds upon
the previous conferences in Oslo and Nayarit, to all relevant fora, in
particular the NPT Review Conference 2015 and in the UN framework, as they
should be at the centre of all deliberations, obligations and commitments with
regard to nuclear disarmament,
Austria pledges to follow the
imperative of human security for all and to promote the protection of civilians
against risks stemming from nuclear weapons,
Austria calls on all states parties
to the NPT to renew their commitment to the urgent and full implementation of
existing obligations under Article VI, and to this end, to identify and pursue
effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of
nuclear weapons and Austria pledges to cooperate with all stakeholders to
achieve this goal,
Austria calls on all nuclear
weapons possessor states to take concrete interim measures to reduce the risk
of nuclear weapon detonations, including reducing the operational status of nuclear
weapons and moving nuclear weapons away from deployment into storage,
diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in military doctrines and rapid
reductions of all types of nuclear weapons,
Austria pledges to cooperate with all relevant stakeholders, States,
international organisations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movements, parliamentarians and civil society, in efforts to stigmatise,
prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons in light of their unacceptable
humanitarian consequences and associated risks.
Here is the introduction to my 93,000 word submission.
Uranium Exploitation and Environmental racism:
Why environmental
despoliation and the ignorance of radiological risks of uranium mining cannot
be justified by the nuclear weapons states for the procurement of the raw stock
material for their nuclear explosives
Vienna Conference on the
Humanitarian Impact of Human Weapons
8-9 December 2014, Hofburg
Palace Vienna, Austria
Dr David Lowry, United Kingdom
Environmental policy and
research consultant, member, Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates (NWAA), senior
research fellow, Institute for Resource and Security Studies, (Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA), former director European Proliferation Information Centre
(EIC), former research fellow, Energy and Environment Research Unit, Open
University , United Kingdom
Context
I want make this submission
following on the presentation by Dr Arjun Makijani of the US-based Institute
for Energy and Environmental Research in the US in session 1b, who highlighted
the often overlooked environmental degradation, lack of remediation and health
hazards posed by uranium mining for the raw materials to make nuclear
explosives for the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapons states (NWS). I note
that this joint human health and environmental concern is the focus of an
excellent and disturbing poster exhibition outside the main door to the stage
of this Conference Hall.
I also note the conclusions of
the interpretation of existing environmental law to military nuclear activities
discussed in depth and breadth by the excellent panel in Session IV.
Both this conference and the
predecessor Civil Society Conference in Vienna over the weekend have heard the
moving testimony of radiation victims from the testing and belligerent us eof
nuclear weapons: the Japanese “Hibakusha”, direct victims of nuclear wepons
deliberately used upon on their communities, and the US, Marshallese Islanders,
Australian indigenous peoples, and Kazakh “Downwinders, who have sufferd from
nuclear testing.
But there are hundreds of
thousands of radiation victims worldwide from the production of nuclear
weapons, even if we remain lucky enough that they are never used by deliberate
decision, or detonated by accident.
I raised this matter of concern
with the United Kingdom delegation, representing the country of which I am a citizen,
in the margins of this conference, to be told the exposure to radiation from
uranium procurement was a long time ago. That is true, but the impact of
exposure lives on through genetic transfer across generations, as the
compensation agreements in the United States ( surprising not mentioned by the
US
Ambassador
to this conference in either contribution he made from the floor) have
demonstrated recognise the responsibility of current political administrations
for past administration’ actions.
Therefore, as my own Government
has declined to take moral responsibility for the significant deleterious
impact of the production process for the procurement of the raw uranium that,
in its converted form, now makes up the nuclear explosives in each of the UK ‘s
180 nuclear warheads, I will set out below some examples of the impacts,
especially to inform my own Government why they have a duty to wider humanity
to take responsibility for the desecration of sacred land and for damaging the
heath of exposed indigenous peoples and their successor generations, especially
as indigenous people’s land in former colonies were used as the sources of the
UK’s uranium used in nuclear warheads.
Governments have accepted the
importance of recognizing and mitigating the carbon footprint of the production
process of commercially tradable goods; they also need to accept the
radiological footprint of past nuclear explosive materials production needs to
be mitigated, and act accordingly in a moral fashion.
Nuclear warheads, even if never
detonated, have not only an extraordinary financial cost, but even more
importantly , an ecological, environmental, and enduring health cost – both
radiological and toxicological - to the people whose communities have been
exploited for the procurement of the uranium, which in processed and
manufactured form, currently sits in the global nuclear arsenals of over 16,000
warheads, to no positive benefit a huge detriments for the human communities
from which it was expropriated.
This submission includes as
illustration primary materials ( and associated references) covering problems
encountered in the major uranium production countries (Australia, United
States, Canada, Kazakhstan, & Namibia, and some more minor ones such as the
Czech Republic, France and eastern Germany).
Prolegomena
In March 2009 , an American
Civil Society non governmental organization, Beyond Nuclear, published
in its regular information bulletin, Thunderbird, a review and summary
of a conference held in Washington DC in February 2009, addressing the issue of
the impact on indigenous people of uranium mining, milling and its waste
streams. I reproduce the summary immediately below:
Beyond Nuclear Bulletin
March 5, 2009
Standing Room Only as
Indigenous Speakers Describe Atomic Genocide
It was standing room only at
the huge PowerShift 2009 youth conference on climate change in Washington, DC,
February 27, when Beyond Nuclear hosted a panel that included three indigenous
activists, a scientist and a prominent actor. The panel - Human Rights, Uranium
Mining and Unfolding Genocide - featured actor, James
Cromwell;
French nuclear scientist, Bruno Chareyron, Manuel Pino of the Acoma Pueblo;
Sidi-Amar Taoua, a Touareg from Niger; and Mitch, an Australian Aboriginal. The
panel held a press conference, briefed legislators on Capitol Hill and spoke at
PowerShift to more than 500 students.
The activists described how
uranium mining has disproportionately targeted indigenous communities across
the world and represents a deliberate genocide. Mine workers were poorly
protected and informed and suffered from often deadly diseases without proper
treatment. Most disused mine sites have never been cleaned up while water
supplies remain contaminated. "Poison Wind," a documentary by Jenny
Pond, was also shown to a packed room at Busboys and Poets in Washington, DC at
an event hosted by Cromwell.
The three days of events
represent the beginning of a new Beyond Nuclear campaign to draw attention to
the consistent violation of fundamental human rights caused by uranium mining.
The Beyond Nuclear tour of
indigenous speakers on human rights and uranium mining received a variety of
press coverage, including an article by Agence France Presse that appeared in
the Melbourne Age, the Melbourne Sun and the Economic Times (of India) among
other publications. View the articles here. In addition, James Cromwell was
interviewed live on CleanSkies TV.
The history of neglect
Uranium mining legacies
remediation and renaissance development:
an international overview
In an overview paper, Peter Waggitt
Today’s legacy problems arose because due to the lack of
legislation in earlier
times. With no obligation to plan for, or undertake
remediation and with no funds
having been put aside to carry out the work, remediation did
not happen. This last
point is a major issue when legacy remediation programmes are
discussed or efforts
are made to plan work. Mining legacy remediation is a very
expensive business,
more so when uranium is involved…. few of the countries most
affected by the uranium mine
legacy issue have adequate finance or resources and
infrastructure in their regulatory
networks to plan, develop and manage such programmes. Neither
do many of
the countries most affected have sufficiently well developed
environmental protection
laws and resources.
So the diagnosis is one of neglect and lack of resources. The
prognosis is not
very good at first glance due to the vast amounts of financial
support required at a
time when there are many other priorities for Governments
expenditure in many of
the most affected nations. Public health, education and
re-building economies are
all activities competing for the money available. But all may
not be lost if legacy
remediation can be incorporated with other development plans.
In today’s market this has increased interest in the
possibility of re-treating tailings,
and perhaps other residues from legacy sites, to extract
uranium. A number
of proposals are being considered by mining companies and
governments in former
uranium mining centres around the world. Such plans should
only be considered
if they are a component of a comprehensive remediation
programme. Any
new processing scheme should be designed to ensure that the
end state of the project
will be a remediated site i.e. no new legacy
is created.
No comments:
Post a Comment