NUCLEAR STATES IN VIOLATION OF NUKE TREATY

By IPS Correspondents and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

OSLO, Sep 1 2006 (IPS) - As the UN General Assembly in New York grapples yet again with the urgent question of nuclear disarmament, the world would do well to revisit the story of pioneer nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, writes Fredrik S. Heffermehl, President of the Norwegian Peace Alliance, Vice President of the International Peace Bureau and editor at www.peaceispossible.info. In this analysis, Heffermehl writes that exactly twenty years have passed since a major news story using Vanunu as its source removed any doubt that Israel had a nuclear weapons programme. His dramatic abduction by Israel, followed by a secret trial in Jerusalem and 18 years in gaol under cruel conditions, made Vanunu world famous. Few cases more vividly dramatise the utter hypocrisy of nuclear policy. Ten years ago the ICJ in The Hague ruled the use of nuclear arms generally illegal under international law, finding that states have a legally binding obligation to enter into negotiations in good faith — and reach a specific result– on nuclear disarmament. There was, however, widespread disappointment with compliance with the ruling, and anti-nuclear and peace groups decided to request from the court more specific clarification of whether the nuclear weapon states have complied with the treaty in the past and what they are obliged to do in the future.

As the UN General Assembly in New York grapples yet again –for the 61st time– with the urgent question of nuclear disarmament, the world would do well to revisit the story of the pioneer nuclear whistleblower who paid –and still pays– a heavy price for the important service he rendered. Exactly twenty years have passed since a major news story in London’s The Sunday Times removed any doubt that Israel had a nuclear weapons programme of substantial scope and sophistication. The source of the story was a young Israeli nuclear technician named Mordechai Vanunu who had worked at the Dimona plant in the Negev desert. Before the story went to press on October 5, 1986, Vanunu had mysteriously vanished — until Israel admitted to having him. None of the governments involved ever offered a meaningful explanation of how the man could disappear in London one day and resurface in Israeli custody a few weeks later. Gradually, however, an unsavoury story emerged of how on September 30 a team from Mossad, the Israeli secret service, operating a honey trap in London, had lured Vanunu onto a flight to Rome where he was beaten, drugged, and then whisked off to Israel on a naval vessel disguised as an Israeli commercial ship. The dramatic abduction, followed by a secret trial in Jerusalem and 18 years in gaol under cruel conditions, have made Vanunu world famous. Few in the global struggle to eliminate nuclear weapons have suffered more. In 2004 Vanunu left gaol, but he was not free. He now lives in East Jerusalem barred from leaving his registered quarters and speaking to foreigners — restrictions that violate the international treaty on civil and political rights and the basic right to personal freedom. Victims of such grave human rights violations are normally helped by strong protests from other countries. But Britain and Italy were tolerant of Israel’s blatant violation of their national sovereignty. The US and other states did little to end Israel’s torture of Vanunu in the form of solitary confinement for almost 12 years in a 2-by-3 meter cell. Israel often claims to be a democracy under the rule of law. Why then has no state insisted that a person who has served his time is entitled to live as a free citizen? Why does the silence around him continue still today? Few cases more vividly dramatise the utter hypocrisy of nuclear policy. Governments of nuclear states must tread lightly to avoid activating the massive latent public opposition to nuclear weapons. Indeed, huge majorities around the world reject nuclear weapons and wish their governments make nuclear abolition a top priority — over 90 percent in advanced countries, Australia, Canada, Europe and well over 80 percent even in the democratic nuclear weapon states like Britain, France, and the US. But these strong democratic wishes have had little influence on governmental behaviour. Consequently neither states with nuclear arms nor their allies and friends have been eager to demand Vanunu’s freedom. With Washington putting pressure on other states to abstain from nuclear weapons, its tolerance of Israel’s arsenals presents a problem. Particularly in the Middle East, any attention to Vanunu and Israeli nukes is bound to raise questions on the legitimacy of the policy towards Iran. Indeed, the whole policy to pressure states to abstain from obtaining nuclear weapons is on shaky foundations: the so-called Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) from 1968. In the terms of the treaty, non-nuclear states agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for general and total nuclear disarmament. The nuclear weapon states, however, neglected their own disarmament obligations under the NPT. If this doesn’t render the obligation of non-nuclear states non-binding, it certainly undermines the legitimacy of nuclear states demanding respect for the NPT treaty. Since governments are obviously incapable of rescuing the world from the prospect of nuclear annihilation, our only hope seems to lie in popular mobilisation. Ten years ago the international anti-nuclear movement brought the nuclear issue to the highest international court, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which in a July 8, 1996, opinion declared the use of nuclear arms generally illegal under international law. The high court found further that states have a legally binding obligation to enter into negotiations in good faith — and reach a specific result– on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. This requirement is clearly stated in article VI of the NPT. This summer the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), which together with the International Peace Bureau in Geneva induced the UN General Assembly consult the ICJ, met in Brussels to celebrate the 1996 decision. There was, however, widespread disappointment with compliance with the ruling, and the organisations decided to return to the court to request more specific clarification of whether the nuclear weapon states have complied with the treaty in the past and what they are obliged to do in the future. Vanunu deserves gratitude, praise, and freedom, but continues to hold a world free of nuclear weapons his highest priority. The new initiative to consult the World Court deserves urgent support from citizens of the world – and states of the world, who in these weeks, for the 61st time, are discussing nuclear disarmament at the UN General Assembly in New York. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)