Mandela, Obama, tolerating dissent and the fate of 2 US whistleblowers

I  note the splendid speech made by US President Barack Obama at the memorial service for former South African President Nelson Mandela ("Madiba"), today, and agree with his assertion that  Mr Mandela showed us the power of action and "of taking risks on behalf of our ideals.”  I also note President Obama’s  observation that  “here are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people.” And I wonder  whether  resident Obama has reflected on this sentiment as it applies to United States dissenting citizens Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden.

David

 

 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

December 10, 2013

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/10/remarks-president-obama-memorial-service-former-south-african-president-

Remarks by President Obama at Memorial Service for Former South African President Nelson Mandela

First National Bank Stadium
Johannesburg, South Africa

1:31 P.M. SAST
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  To Graça Machel and the Mandela family; to President Zuma and members of the government; to heads of states and government, past and present; distinguished guests -- it is a singular honor to be with you today, to celebrate a life like no other.  To the people of South Africa -- (applause) -- people of every race and walk of life -- the world thanks you for sharing Nelson Mandela with us.  His struggle was your struggle.  His triumph was your triumph.  Your dignity and your hope found expression in his life.  And your freedom, your democracy is his cherished legacy.
It is hard to eulogize any man -- to capture in words not just the facts and the dates that make a life, but the essential truth of a person -- their private joys and sorrows; the quiet moments and unique qualities that illuminate someone’s soul.  How much harder to do so for a giant of history, who moved a nation toward justice, and in the process moved billions around the world.
Born during World War I, far from the corridors of power, a boy raised herding cattle and tutored by the elders of his Thembu tribe, Madiba would emerge as the last great liberator of the 20th century.  Like Gandhi, he would lead a resistance movement -- a movement that at its start had little prospect for success.  Like Dr. King, he would give potent voice to the claims of the oppressed and the moral necessity of racial justice.  He would endure a brutal imprisonment that began in the time of Kennedy and Khrushchev, and reached the final days of the Cold War.  Emerging from prison, without the force of arms, he would -- like Abraham Lincoln -- hold his country together when it threatened to break apart.  And like America’s Founding Fathers, he would erect a constitutional order to preserve freedom for future generations -- a commitment to democracy and rule of law ratified not only by his election, but by his willingness to step down from power after only one term.
Given the sweep of his life, the scope of his accomplishments, the adoration that he so rightly earned, it’s tempting I think to remember Nelson Mandela as an icon, smiling and serene, detached from the tawdry affairs of lesser men.  But Madiba himself strongly resisted such a lifeless portrait.  (Applause.)  Instead, Madiba insisted on sharing with us his doubts and his fears; his miscalculations along with his victories.  “I am not a saint,” he said, “unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.”
It was precisely because he could admit to imperfection -- because he could be so full of good humor, even mischief, despite the heavy burdens he carried -- that we loved him so.  He was not a bust made of marble; he was a man of flesh and blood -- a son and a husband, a father and a friend.  And that’s why we learned so much from him, and that’s why we can learn from him still.  For nothing he achieved was inevitable.  In the arc of his life, we see a man who earned his place in history through struggle and shrewdness, and persistence and faith.  He tells us what is possible not just in the pages of history books, but in our own lives as well.
Mandela showed us the power of action; of taking risks on behalf of our ideals.  Perhaps Madiba was right that he inherited, “a proud rebelliousness, a stubborn sense of fairness” from his father.  And we know he shared with millions of black and colored South Africans the anger born of, “a thousand slights, a thousand indignities, a thousand unremembered moments…a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people,” he said.
But like other early giants of the ANC -- the Sisulus and Tambos -- Madiba disciplined his anger and channeled his desire to fight into organization, and platforms, and strategies for action, so men and women could stand up for their God-given dignity.  Moreover, he accepted the consequences of his actions, knowing that standing up to powerful interests and injustice carries a price.  “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination.  I’ve cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and [with] equal opportunities.  It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve.  But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”  (Applause.)
Mandela taught us the power of action, but he also taught us the power of ideas; the importance of reason and arguments; the need to study not only those who you agree with, but also those who you don’t agree with.  He understood that ideas cannot be contained by prison walls, or extinguished by a sniper’s bullet.  He turned his trial into an indictment of apartheid because of his eloquence and his passion, but also because of his training as an advocate.  He used decades in prison to sharpen his arguments, but also to spread his thirst for knowledge to others in the movement.  And he learned the language and the customs of his oppressor so that one day he might better convey to them how their own freedom depend upon his.  (Applause.)
Mandela demonstrated that action and ideas are not enough.  No matter how right, they must be chiseled into law and institutions.  He was practical, testing his beliefs against the hard surface of circumstance and history.  On core principles he was unyielding, which is why he could rebuff offers of unconditional release, reminding the Apartheid regime that “prisoners cannot enter into contracts.”
 But as he showed in painstaking negotiations to transfer power and draft new laws, he was not afraid to compromise for the sake of a larger goal.  And because he was not only a leader of a movement but a skillful politician, the Constitution that emerged was worthy of this multiracial democracy, true to his vision of laws that protect minority as well as majority rights, and the precious freedoms of every South African.
And finally, Mandela understood the ties that bind the human spirit.  There is a word in South Africa -- Ubuntu -- (applause) -- a word that captures Mandela’s greatest gift:  his recognition that we are all bound together in ways that are invisible to the eye; that there is a oneness to humanity; that we achieve ourselves by sharing ourselves with others, and caring for those around us.
We can never know how much of this sense was innate in him, or how much was shaped in a dark and solitary cell.  But we remember the gestures, large and small -- introducing his jailers as honored guests at his inauguration; taking a pitch in a Springbok uniform; turning his family’s heartbreak into a call to confront HIV/AIDS -- that revealed the depth of his empathy and his understanding.  He not only embodied Ubuntu, he taught millions to find that truth within themselves.
It took a man like Madiba to free not just the prisoner, but the jailer as well -- (applause) -- to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you; to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion and generosity and truth.  He changed laws, but he also changed hearts.
For the people of South Africa, for those he inspired around the globe, Madiba’s passing is rightly a time of mourning, and a time to celebrate a heroic life.  But I believe it should also prompt in each of us a time for self-reflection.  With honesty, regardless of our station or our circumstance, we must ask:  How well have I applied his lessons in my own life?  It’s a question I ask myself, as a man and as a President.
We know that, like South Africa, the United States had to overcome centuries of racial subjugation.  As was true here, it took sacrifice -- the sacrifice of countless people, known and unknown, to see the dawn of a new day.  Michelle and I are beneficiaries of that struggle.  (Applause.)  But in America, and in South Africa, and in countries all around the globe, we cannot allow our progress to cloud the fact that our work is not yet done.
The struggles that follow the victory of formal equality or universal franchise may not be as filled with drama and moral clarity as those that came before, but they are no less important.  For around the world today, we still see children suffering from hunger and disease.  We still see run-down schools.  We still see young people without prospects for the future.  Around the world today, men and women are still imprisoned for their political beliefs, and are still persecuted for what they look like, and how they worship, and who they love.  That is happening today.  (Applause.)
And so we, too, must act on behalf of justice.  We, too, must act on behalf of peace.  There are too many people who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality.  There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people.  (Applause.)  And there are too many of us on the sidelines, comfortable in complacency or cynicism when our voices must be heard.
The questions we face today -- how to promote equality and justice; how to uphold freedom and human rights; how to end conflict and sectarian war -- these things do not have easy answers.  But there were no easy answers in front of that child born in World War I.  Nelson Mandela reminds us that it always seems impossible until it is done.  South Africa shows that is true.  South Africa shows we can change, that we can choose a world defined not by our differences, but by our common hopes.  We can choose a world defined not by conflict, but by peace and justice and opportunity.
We will never see the likes of Nelson Mandela again.  But let me say to the young people of Africa and the young people around the world -- you, too, can make his life’s work your own.  Over 30 years ago, while still a student, I learned of Nelson Mandela and the struggles taking place in this beautiful land, and it stirred something in me.  It woke me up to my responsibilities to others and to myself, and it set me on an improbable journey that finds me here today.  And while I will always fall short of Madiba’s example, he makes me want to be a better man.  (Applause.)  He speaks to what’s best inside us.
After this great liberator is laid to rest, and when we have returned to our cities and villages and rejoined our daily routines, let us search for his strength.  Let us search for his largeness of spirit somewhere inside of ourselves.  And when the night grows dark, when injustice weighs heavy on our hearts, when our best-laid plans seem beyond our reach, let us think of Madiba and the words that brought him comfort within the four walls of his cell:  “It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.”
What a magnificent soul it was.  We will miss him deeply.  May God bless the memory of Nelson Mandela.  May God bless the people of South Africa.  (Applause.)
END

The Atomic Bizarre

The Atomic Bizarre: Nuclear security and proliferation – key issues of concern

Dr David Lowry

Environmental policy and research consultant, member Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates,  and former director, European Proliferation Information Centre (EPIC)

 

Nuclear security, nuclear weapons and nuclear new build – key issues for consideration by the NFLA

 

Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) Annual Policy Seminar

Friday 6th December 2013, Committee Room 4, County Hall,

Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff, CF10 4UW 1.30am – 3.30pm

 

Twenty one years ago this month, a Conservative minister said in a written reply to a Labour MP:

“It is my understanding from the limited information available that Iraq ceased to participate in the activities of the Baghdad pact nuclear training centre when it was transferred to Tehran following the revolution in Iraq in 1959.”

HC Deb 14 December 1992 vol 216 cc23-4W

This reveals that a British government was responsible for supplying both Iraq and Iran with basis for their nuclear programmes. And therein lies a long-standing problem

 

The minister was Michael Heseltine; the MP, Paul Flynn

This goes to show that Parliament has a long history in overseeing nuclear activities- and nuclear activities, including British exports, go back a very long way

A year ago the Independent newspaper reported:

“Britain today issued a renewed appeal for countries to come together and combat the threat of a nuclear terrorist attack. Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt said the number of incidents involving the loss or theft of nuclear materials around the world was growing and nations needed to show the "utmost vigilance…."Nuclear terrorism is a real and global threat. A successful attack, no matter where in the world it came, would be catastrophic…..Catastrophic for the immediate devastation and terrible loss of life, and for the far-reaching consequences - psychological, economic, political and environmental. Such an attack was unthinkable just a generation ago. But it is now a possibility we need to confront with the utmost vigilance."

Independent, 1 November 2012

Britain urges countries to join forces in combating nuclear threat

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-urges-countries-to-join-forces-in-combating-nuclear-threat-8273634.html]

Grounds for concern

In March 1962 a 10-year-old boy discovered a  cobalt-60 industrial radiography source, which  not in its shielded container. The boy carried the source in a pocket for several days, then it was placed in a kitchen cabinet in his home. Four family members died of resulting radiation sickness: the boy died 29 April (day 38), his mother on 19 July, his 2-year-old sister on 18 August, and his grandmother on 15 October. Radiation exposure was not identified as the cause of the deaths until July-August. The father survived with lesser symptoms.  Five other individuals also received significant overdoses of radiation.

(http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1962MEX1.html)

A similar incident happened occurred on 13 September 1987, at Goiânia, in the Brazilian state of Goiás (Gojas), after an old  radioatherapy source was stolen from an abandoned hospital site in the city. It was subsequently handled by many people, resulting in four deaths. About 112,000 people were examined for radioactive contamination and 249 were found to have significant levels of radioactive material in or on their body

Back in Mexico, sometime in November, 1983, Sotelo and Ricardo Hernandez removed a Picker C-3000 teletherapy unit from a hospital warehouse in Juarez, near Mexico’s border with US,  and loaded it onto their pickup. For one reason or another, the source capsule was perforated and approximately 1,000 pellets of Cobalt^-60  fell into the bed of the truck. They then took the teletherapy unit to a local scrapyard and sold it for $10. 

At the scrapyard, many of the cobalt pellets that had remained in the source capsule were scattered around when the teletherapy unit was dropped by a magnetic crane. The rest of the pellets stuck to the magnet and became mixed with steel leaving the scrapyard. Most of the latter went to two local foundries. One foundry melted down the steel to produce the pedestal-style table legs used in fast food restaurants. The other produced steel rods (re-bar) for reinforcing concrete.  

The problem was discovered when a truck carrying the reinforcing rods made a wrong turn – ironically at the Los Alamos nuclear weapons complex in New Mexico-  and set off a radiation alarm. Within three days the two foundries had been identified as the source of the contaminated table legs and re-bar, and the scrapyard and contaminated pick-up truck had been located.  

(http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/accidents/juarez.htm)

The issue of radioactively-contaminated recycled metals is something I know the NFLAs has rightly taken up.

Earlier this week, another worrying radiological incident took place, once again in Mexico. Reuters reported:

“Thieves have made off with a truck in Mexico carrying a dangerous radioactive source used in medical treatments, a material that could also provide an ingredient for a so-called "dirty bomb".

The U.N. nuclear agency said it had been informed by Mexican authorities that the truck, which was taking cobalt-60 from a hospital in the northern city of Tijuana to a radioactive waste-storage centre, was stolen near Mexico City on Monday.”

Truck with "dangerous" radioactive material stolen in Mexico

Reuters, 2 December 2013

(http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/04/uk-mexico-nuclear-iaea-idUKBRE9B30FF20131204)

 

 

 

Nuclear Security arrangements in the UK

Paul Flynn was told by the energy minister in a written Parliamentary answer in October three years ago:

“Under the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003, the civil nuclear industry is required to have in place a range of security measures to protect nuclear sites, materials, transports and information. The cost of these security measures and the costs of their regulation by the Office of Civil Nuclear Security are met by the civil nuclear industry in accordance with the Nuclear Industries Security (Fees) Regulations 2005 and the Energy Act 2004”

The minister added:

“In addition to this, my Department has provided some capital funding to the Civil Nuclear Police Authority (CNPA) for the procurement of large items of equipment to enable the Civil Nuclear Constabulary to operate effectively. The CNPA then recovers the cost of these items from the civil nuclear industry. In 2009-10, £2.7million was provided to the CNPA by the Department.”

(Hansard, 18 October 2010: Column 481W)

 

Hinkley Point C’s new security issues

In October this year, Paul wondered about the changed security arrangements that might now exist as the French companies, EDF Energy and Areva, plus Chinese companies China General Nuclear Corporation and China National Nuclear Corporation plan to collaborate on the planned new  nuclear  power plant at Hinkley Point C; in particular, would the top executives of these foreign companies require to be security vetted?

Energy minister Michael Fallon told him:

“In the UK, all employees in the civil nuclear industry and contractors must be vetted to a level of clearance commensurate with their access to nuclear material and/or sensitive nuclear information or technology in accordance with the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003. Agreed standards and processes are applied in accordance with the UK's national security vetting policies and all vetting costs are recoverable from industry.”

(Hansard, 28 October 2013: Column 368W)

 

 

Nuclear Security under-regulation

So how is our official nuclear security regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, getting on in making more robust the security of our nuclear facilities and nuclear materials, such as the 111,000 kilogrammes of plutonium, stored at Sellafield?

The most striking thing to note is that on 30 August this year, the official nuclear security and safety regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation explained in an introduction to its new Nuclear Research Needs 2013-14 report:

“In 2012, ONR undertook to publish an integrated statement of Nuclear Research Needs (NRN) to identify the requirements for nuclear related research across the whole of ONR’s regulatory remit. This was partly in response to a review and report on nuclear research and development capabilities produced in 2011 by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which questioned the limited scope of the NRI.   ONR committed to reviewing the NRN and expanding it to cover our entire regulatory remit: this is the first integrated NRN published to fulfil that commitment.”

It goes on to say:

“This NRN describes the current ONR view on the need for research related to issues that might undermine safe and/or secure operation of UK nuclear facilities if not properly managed.”

And further states:

“This document covers the nuclear research needs of ONR’s six operational programmes, namely:

 

• Civil Nuclear Security - regulates security at civil licensed nuclear sites, and all other locations where sensitive nuclear information is held; and the movement by road and rail within the UK, and globally within UK flagged vessels of nuclear and other radioactive material.”
• Radioactive Materials Transport ‐ regulates safety during the transport of radioactive material by road and rail in Great Britain, and advises on its transport by air and sea within the UK territorial waters. 
• Civil Nuclear Reactor Programme/New Build ‐ regulates the safety of operating and defueling nuclear power stations and licensing and permissioning of proposed new build nuclear power stations. 
• Sellafield Programme ‐ regulates the safety of Sellafield and Windscale nuclear licensed sites in Cumbria.
• Decommissioning, Fuel and Waste Programme ‐ regulates safety on a variety of nuclear fuel sites, including fuel cycle, nuclear research, waste management and decommissioning sites.
• Defence Programme ‐ regulates safety at defence sector nuclear sites, including submarine and atomic weapons facilities, working closely with the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator (DNSR).

[http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/research/2013/documents/nrn-2013-part-2.pdf ]

 

All of which is encouraging, until you read on page 2 of the full 165 page document:

“… not all of the above technical areas have detailed research project requirements, therefore: Nuclear Fuel Research, Civil Nuclear Security and the Environment Agencies have not included any research projects within this detailed research needs document.” (My emphasis)

When I read this, I had a double take. It could not really assert that, could it? But actually, it does.

With a prospective new -build power reactor programme, a possible export of  plutonium in MOX fuel, a possible plutonium burner-reactor and a certain decommissioning programme involving  huge quantities of radioactively contaminated  materials being transported nationwide for many years by road, rail - and probably ships too - from protected licensed nuclear sites, in a climate of unresolved security concerns and terrorists threats, it is  incomprehensible that  the UK’s national nuclear security regulator would  have no need to do any research on security issues.

If nothing else, the complexities of how vetting of the huge number of people who will be crossing the thresholds of licensed nuclear installations during transport missions, and others who have access to the huge increase in technical documentation, will be carried out. How will the vetters be trained, and by whom?

Nuclear’s insecurity has been the “elephant in the room” for the nuclear industry from the start of commercialisation of the technology in the early 1950s. Today ministers routinely drop into speeches that safety and security are their number one priority when they sanction any nuclear go-ahead decision.

They will almost certainly genuflect towards Fukushima when addressing safety, but its security failure equivalent, The terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington DC in on 11 September 2001, is never similarly name checked.

Post 9/11 2001, at a minimum, it is difficult to argue that there is any country with major nuclear facilities where an attack by a small group of well-armed, well-trained terrorists, using at least a lorry/truck bomb and having the assistance of one insider, is not a plausible threat against which security systems should be prepared to defend. National standards and regulations should include regular, realistic, independent testing of the performance of security systems in defeating intelligent, well-trained insider and outsider efforts to overcome them.

 

 

I will close with a barely believable tale of the Atomic Bazaar

 

Among the reasons the Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear programme had to be reconvened last month was that France objected to the deal being closed off earlier.

The French objections were over Tehran's contested plutonium production plant at Arak, but whatever doubts they might have over Arak, they seem to be sanguine about Iran's involvement in uranium enrichment.

Indeed, they are in industrial partnership with the Iranians in this technology and have been for four decades since the agreement was initiated by the Shah in 1975.

Oddly, this deal never gets reported in the context of the Iran nuclear negotiations. Is there any good reason why not?

The origins of the deal illustrate the dangers of international nuclear collaboration.
A joint-stock uranium enrichment Eurodif (European gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment) consortium was formed in 1973, with France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden the original shareholders.In 1975 Sweden's 10 per cent share in Eurodif was sold to Iran.

The French government subsidiary company Cogema (now Areva) and the then Iranian government established the spin-out Sofidif (Société Franco-Iranienne pour l'enrichissement de l'uranium par diffusion gazeuse) with 60 per cent and 40 per cent shares, respectively.

In turn, Sofidif acquired a 25 per cent share in Eurodif, which gave Iran its 10 per cent share of Eurodif.

The former Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, lent $1 billion (and another $180 million in 1977) for the construction of the Eurodif factory to have the right to buy 10 per cent of the site's production.

Although Iran's active involvement in Eurodif was halted following the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran has retained its active involvement in Sofidif, headquartered in Rue La Fayette in Paris, to the present day.

Its current annual report is audited by KPMG. Dr Ali Daee of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran was appointed Iran's new permanent representative to Sofidif as recently as September 25 last year.
Iran's stake in Eurodif was exposed in a report written by Paris-based German nuclear expert Mycle Schneider for the Greens and the European Free Alliance in the European Parliament.

Four years ago, on 1^st October 2009, an earlier preliminary atomic agreement with Iran was reached involving the UN nuclear watchdog body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under which it was agreed to transfer three quarters of Iran's low-enriched uranium abroad.

In return, the West agreed to supply Iran with fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, which came online in 1967 and which produces medical isotopes for tests for around one million patients in Iran. But when Argentina, which had previously supplied the fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor, indicated it was unwilling to do so again, it prompted Iran to ask the IAEA for help.

It turned out that France was to play a critical role in resolving the impasse over enriched uranium fuel for the reactor.

Although in principle Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant - officially declared to the IAEA in February 2003 - could have enriched the low-enriched uranium to the level needed for the reactor to operate, the main "uranium yellowcake" feedstock for enrichment, the uranium conversion facility in Esfahan, had been contaminated.

France had both the know-how and willingness to help clean up the contaminated fuel.
Fast forward to November 2013. France, as a nuclear technology supplier to Iran, ganging up on its customer client with the other self-appointed five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany, is guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

The French links with Iran's nuclear project

Morning Star 29 November 2013

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-8340-The-French-links-with-Irans-nuclear-project

 

Curious as to why the extraordinary continued role of Sofidif had barely made a mark in the political debate over Iran’s atomic ambitions, Paul posed a question earlier this week to the Foreign Office, asking what discussions he had had with the Iranian and  French delegation during the most recent P5+1 meeting with Iran in Geneva about the joint Iranian-French involvement in the uranium enrichment consortium Sofidif.

New junior foreign minister, Hugh Robertson, responded:

“Neither Sofidif nor Eurodif were discussed with either the French or Iranian delegations at the recent nuclear negotiations in Geneva. Discussions focussed solely on securing a first stage agreement between the E3+3 and Iran which addresses our most important concerns about the Iranian nuclear programme.)

(Hansard, 2 December 2013: Column 569W)

How convenient!

Atomic salesman Cameron opens Pandora’s Box

In classical Greek mythology, Pandora was the first woman on Earth. Zeus ordered Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship, to create her, so he did—using water and earth  When Prometheus - mytholigically a Titan and trickster-  stole fire from heaven, Zeus took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Epimetheus, Prometheus' brother. With her, Pandora was given a beautiful jar – with instructions not to open it under any circumstance. Impelled by her curiosity (given to her by the gods), Pandora opened it, and all evil contained therein escaped and spread over the earth. She hastened to close the container, but the whole contents had escaped….

It is clear from David Cameron’s trade promotion mission to China earlier this week, that he is hawking British nuclear expertise in exchange for inward investment from China’s State Investment bank.

The BBC reported on Wednesday:

“David Cameron has promised to create a "partnership for growth and reform" as he visits China on a trade mission with more than 100 UK business leaders. The PM, who met Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on Monday, also pledged to put his "full political weight" behind a proposed EU-China trade agreement

On Monday, Premier Li Keqiang said the pair had agreed in their talks to "push for breakthroughs.. on nuclear power…”

 

This could indeed open Pandora’s Box.

 

 

Mandela led global call for nuclear disarmament

I thought this hugely important  aspect of Nelson Mandela's international humanitarian education and campaigning  should be given attention, something missing so far in voluminous media coverage so far.

 

David

 

Nelson Mandela Calls for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
United Nations, September 21, 1998

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1998/09/21_mandela.htm

President Mandela, in an impassioned speech to the United Nations General Assembly today, called on the nuclear-weapon States to make a firm commitment to eliminating nuclear weapons and on the global community to eradicate poverty. Mandela, the third to speak in the Assembly's opening session after Brazil's Foreign Minister Luiz Felipe Lampreia and U.S. President William Clinton, received two standing ovations from the full assembly hall.

Mandela recalled the very first resolution of the United Nations, adopted in January 1946, which called for "the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction," and lamented the fact that "we still do not have concrete and generally accepted proposals supported by a clear commitment by the nuclear-weapon States to the speedy, final and total elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities."

Mandela asked those who justify "these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction - why do they need them anyway?"

"In reality, no rational answer can be advanced to explain in a satisfactory manner what, in the end, is the consequence of Cold War inertia and an attachment to the use of the threat of brute force to assert the primacy of some States over others."

Mandela announced that in an attempt to contribute to the elimination of these weapons, South Africa, together with Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden will be submitting a draft resolution to the First Committee (Disarmament and Security) for consideration by the General Assembly. He called on all members of the United Nations to support the resolution, which will be entitled "Towards a Nuclear Weapons Free World: The Need for a New Agenda."

Ambassador Luiz Felipe Lampreia, Foreign Minister of Brazil, who opened the General Assembly debate, also noted the nuclear disarmament initiative of the eight aforementioned countries.

Commendation letters can be sent to President Mandela, C/o The Permanent Mission of South Africa to the United Nations, 333 East 38th Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10016. Fax (1) 212 692 2498.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Address by President Mandela at the 53rd United Nations General Assembly
New York, 21 September 1998

Mr. President;
Mr. Secretary General, the Hon. Kofi Annan;
Your Excellencies;
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Mr. President, may I take this opportunity as President of the Republic of South Africa and as Chairperson of the Non-Aligned Movement to extend to you our sincere congratulations on your election to the high post of President of the General Assembly. You will be presiding over this august Assembly of the nations of the world at a time when its deliberations and decisions will be of the greatest consequence to the continuous striving of humanity at last to achieve global peace and prosperity.

The Non-Aligned Movement, as well as my own country which is a proud member of that Movement, invest great trust in this organisation that it will discharge its responsibilities to all nations especially at this critical period of its existence. Quite appropriately, this 53rd General Assembly will be remembered through the ages as the moment at which we marked and celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Born in the aftermath of the defeat of the Nazi and fascist crime against humanity, this Declaration held high the hope that all our societies would, in future, be built on the foundations of the glorious vision spelt out in each of its clauses.

For those who had to fight for their emancipation, such as ourselves who, with your help, had to free ourselves from the criminal apartheid system, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights served as the vindication of the justice of our cause. At the same time, it constituted a challenge to us that our freedom, once achieved, should be dedicated to the implementation of the perspectives contained in the Declaration.

Today, we celebrate the fact that this historic document has survived a turbulent five decades, which have seen some of the most extraordinary developments in the evolution of human society. These include the collapse of the colonial system, the passing of a bipolar world, breath-taking advances in science and technology and the entrenchment of the complex process of globalisation. And yet, at the end of it all, the human beings who are the subject of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights continue to be afflicted by wars and violent conflicts. They have, as yet, not attained their freedom from fear of death that would be brought about by the use of weapons of mass destruction as well as conventional arms.

Many are still unable to exercise the fundamental and inalienable democratic rights that would enable them to participate in the determination of the destiny of their countries, nations, families and children and to protect themselves from tyranny and dictatorship.

The very right to be human is denied everyday to hundreds of millions of people as a result of poverty, the unavailability of basic necessities such as food, jobs, water and shelter, education, health care and a healthy environment.

The failure to achieve the vision contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights finds dramatic expression in the contrast between wealth and poverty which characterises the divide between the countries of the North and the countries of the South and within individual countries in all hemispheres.

It is made especially poignant and challenging by the fact that this coexistence of wealth and poverty, the perpetuation of the practice of the resolution of inter and intra-state conflicts by war and the denial of the democratic right of many across the world, all result from the acts of commission and omission particularly by those who occupy positions of leadership in politics, in the economy and in other spheres of human activity.

What I am trying to say is that all these social ills which constitute an offence against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not a pre-ordained result of the forces of nature or the product of a curse of the deities. They are the consequence of decisions which men and women take or refuse to take, all of whom will not hesitate to pledge their devoted support for the vision conveyed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This Declaration was proclaimed as Universal precisely because the founders of this organisation and the nations of the world who joined hands to fight the scourge of fascism, including many who still had to achieve their own emancipation, understood this clearly that our human world was an interdependent whole.

Necessarily, the values of happiness, justice, human dignity, peace and prosperity have a universal application because each people and every individual is entitled to them.

Similarly, no people can truly say it is blessed with happiness, peace and prosperity where others, as human as itself, continue to be afflicted with misery, armed conflict and terrorism and deprivation.

Thus can we say that the challenge posed by the next 50 years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by the next century whose character it must help to fashion, consists in whether humanity, and especially those who will occupy positions of leadership, will have the courage to ensure that, at last, we build a human world consistent with the provisions of that historic Declaration and other human rights instruments that have been adopted since 1948. Immediately, a whole range of areas of conflict confronts us, in Africa, Europe and Asia.

All of us are familiar with these, which range from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola and Sudan on my own continent, to the Balkans in Europe and Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Sri Lanka in Asia.

Clearly, this Organisation and especially the Security Council, acting together with people of goodwill in the countries and areas concerned, has a responsibility to act decisively to contribute to the termination of these destructive conflicts.

Continuously, we have to fight to defeat the primitive tendency towards the glorification of arms, the adulation of force, born of the illusion that injustice can be perpetuated by the capacity to kill, or that disputes are necessarily best resolved by resort to violent means.

As Africans, we are grateful to the Secretary General for the contribution he has made to help us find the way towards ending violent strife on our Continent. We have taken heed of his report, which will reinforce our efforts to banish war from our shores.

The very first resolution of the General Assembly, adopted in January 1946, sought to address the challenge of "the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction".

We must face the fact that after countless initiatives and resolutions, we still do not have concrete and generally accepted proposals supported by a clear commitment by the nuclear-weapons States to the speedy, final and total elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities. We take this opportunity to salute our sister Republic of Brazil for its decision to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and urge all others that have not done so to follow this excellent example.

In an honest attempt to contribute to the definition of the systematic and progressive steps required to eliminate these weapons and the threat of annihilation which they pose, South Africa together with Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden will be submitting a draft resolution to the First Committee for consideration by this Assembly. This is appropriately titled: "Towards a Nuclear Weapon Free World: The Need for a New Agenda".

I call on all members of the United Nations seriously to consider this important resolution and to give it their support. We must ask the question, which might sound naove to those who have elaborated sophisticated arguments to justify their refusal to eliminate these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction - why do they need them anyway!

In reality, no rational answer can be advanced to explain in a satisfactory manner what, in the end, is the consequence of Cold War inertia and an attachment to the use of the threat of brute force, to assert the primacy of some States over others.

Urgent steps are also required to arrive at a just and permanent peace in the Middle East, on the basis of the realisation of the legitimate aspirations of the people of Palestine and respect for the independence and security of all the States of this important region.

We also look forward to the resolution of the outstanding issues of Western Sahara and East Timor, convinced that it is possible to take these matters off the world agenda on the basis of settlements that meet the interests of all the peoples concerned.

Similarly, we would like to salute the bold steps taken by the and Government to cooperate fully in all regional and international iniiatives to ensure that the peoples of the world, including our own, are spared the destructive impact of these crimes.

The world is gripped by an economic crisis which, as President Clinton said in this city only a week ago, has plunged "millions into sudden poverty and disrupt(ed) and disorient(ed) the lives of ordinary people " and brought "deep, personal disappointments (to) tens of millions of people around the world ".

"Recent press reports", President Clinton went on, "have described an entire generation working its way into the middle class over 25 years, then being plummeted into poverty within a matter of months. The stories are heartbreaking - doctors and nurses forced to live in the lobby of a closed hospital; middle class families who owned their own homes, sent their children to college, traveled abroad, now living by selling their possessions".

He said "fast-moving currents (in the world economy) have brought or aggravated problems in Russia and Asia. They threaten emerging economies from Latin America to South Africa " and he spoke of "sacrifice(ing) lives in the name of economic theory" President Clinton further recognized that, in his words, "with a quarter of the world's population in declining growth we (the United States) cannot forever be an oasis of prosperity. Growth at home (in the US) depends upon growth abroad".

I have quoted the President of the United States at this length both because he is correct and because he is the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Accordingly, we would like to believe that with the problem facing all humanity, and especially the poor, having thus been recognised, courage will not desert the powerful when it comes to determining the correct course to be taken and following this course, to address the challenge that has been identified.

The tragedy President Clinton describes goes far beyond the sudden impoverishment of the middle class to which he correctly refers. Poverty has been and is the condition of the daily existence of even larger numbers of ordinary working people.

Paradoxically, the challenge of poverty across the globe has been brought into sharp focus by the fact of the destructive "fast movements of currents" of wealth from one part of the world to the other. Put starkly, we have a situation in which the further accumulation of wealth, rather than contributing to the improvement of the quality of life of all humanity, is generating poverty at a frighteningly accelerated pace. The imperative to act on this urgent, life and death matter can no longer be ignored. The central challenge to ensure that the countries of the South gain access to the productive resources that have accumulated within the world economy should not be avoided by seeking to apportion as much blame as possible to the poor.

Clearly, all relevant matters will have to be addressed, including such issues as greater inflows of long-term capital; terms of trade; debt cancellation; technology transfers; human resource development; emancipation of women and development of the youth; the elimination of poverty; the HIV/AIDS epidemic; environmental protection and the strengthening of financial and other institutions relevant to sustained economic growth and development.

Fortunately, the matter is no longer in dispute that serious work will also have to be done to restructure the multilateral financial and economic institutions so that they address the problems of the modern world economy and become responsive to the urgent needs of the poor of the world.

Similarly, this very Organisation, including its important Security Council, must itself go through its own process of reformation so that it serves the interests of the peoples of the world, in keeping with the purposes for which it was established.

Mr. President; Your Excellencies: The issues we have mentioned were discussed in a comprehensive manner at the Twelfth Summit Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement held in the city of Durban, South Africa, earlier this month. I am privileged to commend the decisions of this important meeting to the General Assembly and the United Nations as a whole, including the Durban Declaration, which the Summit adopted unanimously. I am certain that the decisions adopted by the Non-Aligned Movement will greatly assist this Organisation in its work and further enhance the contribution of the countries of the South to the solution of the problems that face the nations of the world, both rich and poor. This is probably the last time I will have the honour to stand at this podium to address the General Assembly.

Born as the First World War came to a close and departing from public life as the world marks half-a-century of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I have reached that part of the long walk when the opportunity is granted, as it should be to all men and women, to retire to some rest and tranquility in the village of my birth.

As I sit in Qunu and grow as ancient as its hills, I will continue to entertain the hope that there has emerged a cadre of leaders in my own country and region, on my Continent and in the world, which will not allow that any should be denied their freedom as we were; that any should be turned into refugees as we were; that any should be condemned to go hungry as we were; that any should be stripped of their human dignity as we were. I will continue to hope that Africa's Renaissance will strike deep roots and blossom forever, without regard to the changing seasons. Were all these hopes to translate into a realisable dream and not a nightmare to torment the soul of the aged, then will I, indeed, have peace and tranquility.

Then would history and the billions throughout the world proclaim that it was right that we dreamt and that we toiled to give life to a workable dream.

Numpty Dumpties

The announcement by the Coalition it is withdrawing  subsidies for sustainable energy technologies in onshore wind and solar, while simultaneously announcing support for a new  (unsustainable) nuclear power plant at Wylfa, backed by the same hugely generous subsidies that Hinkley C is due to receive from the taxpayers, raises serious  policy questions about the logic of the Coalition energy policy.

I always thought the Lib Dems had a sensible sustainable energy policy that excluded nuclear and included renewables and enhanced energy efficiency. The exigencies of  coalition government led their annual conference in September  to reverse decades of well-grounded opposition to nuclear power. Coalitions, it seems, are corrosive of both proper principles and common sense!

I do not believe the issue with new nuclear is whether it is to be built and operated by a private sector, or a nationalised industry , as the Independent newspaper explores today -"Should the Big Six be nationalized," 4 December. (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/should-the-big-six-be-nationalised-8981112.html)

Whether privately or publicly owned, nuclear power has always required massive subsidies, and in the words of the Environmental Audit Committee report on energy subsidies earlier this week (2 December), whether the Coalition choses to re-label them "market support mechanisms" or "insurance policies", they are subsidies. ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/61/6106.htm#a8)

As Humpty Dumpty said scornfully  in "Alice Through the Looking Glass "'When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."