INTERVIEW WITH MORDECHAI VANUNU: ‘A STRANGE CONCEPT OF JUSTICE’

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.

JERUSALEM, Jul 19 2004 (IPS) - Three months after his release after 18 years in prison in Israel, Mordechai Vanunu, Israel\’s nuclear whistleblower, was back in his country\’s judicial system, this time to demand his full freedom: the lifting of restrictions imposed on him by Israeli authorities barring him from talking to foreigners, particularly journalists, and from leaving the country. Under international law Israel is obliged to restore to Vanunu his full rights as a normal citizen after completion of his sentence. The only exception to this rule is for reasons of \’\’national security\’\’. The judges in the first short session before the Court rightly pointed out that the question of secrets was a key factor in the case. And indeed the nuclear debate has been picking up in Israel in the months around Vanunu\’s release. This whistleblower thinks it is high time that the State thank him instead of trying to punish him forever.

Vanunu actually never gave away secrets and never colluded with foreign powers; he merely made public the danger to Israel of a self-inflicted holocaust. When in 1986 he gave the Sunday Times photographs from his workplace, the Dimona reactor, he was revealing to the general public what was common knowledge in military and foreign affairs circles. The worst that it can be claimed he did was blowing Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity and breaking a taboo and a strict tribal demand of loyalty in the Jewish state.

We talked with him after the hearing before the Supreme Court of Israel:

”This state has a strange concept of justice,” Vanunu said. ”The court was open twelve minutes in the beginning and fifteen minutes in the end. In the intervening almost 2 1/2 hours, the three judges listened to the state’s presentation in camera of secret evidence and witnesses — so secret that neither I nor my lawyers were permitted to attend.”

In a closed 15-minute session with only Vanunu and his lawyers, the focus was on a notebook Vanunu wrote in prison in 1991, containing precise recollections of the Dimona reactor.

”This was only mental training to protect my mind during years of total isolation,” Vanunu explained, ”but the State is making a big point of the fact that I can reproduce information on the bomb programme any time. What they fail to admit is that what I can reproduce is no secret and cannot harm Israeli national security. Therefore it cannot be the basis of continuing restrictions.

”Should the judges go along with the reasoning of the State, the consequence would be that I cannot be given my full freedom before I have lost my mind and memory, a preposterous idea of justice. And meaningless as well, because I am now seeing so many people and could reveal secrets any time — if I had any. Quite to the contrary, the State has been able to see who I am and what I stand for. It was my studies of moral and philosophical issues that led me to an act of consciousness. They have read my letters for 17 1/2 years. I may not have followed blind loyalty to my superiors, but my motive was to protect Israel and the world from immense harm, potential total destruction. I would like to challenge the government to show an example that I have acted in disloyalty or to harm Israel.”

Under international law Israel is obliged to restore to Vanunu his full rights as a normal citizen after completion of his sentence. The only exception to this rule is for reasons of ”national security”. The judges in the first short session before the Court rightly pointed out that the question of secrets was a key factor in the case.

Both foreign and Israeli experts hold that Vanunu has no secrets of interest today — if he ever did. If a state wishes to invoke national security concerns, international precedent requires that it specify and explain its reasons. For Israel to prevail in its case, the secrets it claims Vanunu holds must be material that is not already available in the public domain. Far more information on nuclear weapons than Vanunu ever had is currently available on the Internet.

If the judges go along with depriving him of his rights on the basis of the fact that he has a good memory, this situation will be the same in two weeks, two years, and two decades. So the decision is crucial for his future. Fortunately, the Court announced that it will rule on the matter soon.

Vanunu feels proud to have set an example which many may have already followed: “Recently whistleblowers have come forward much faster, instead of waiting decades to reveal what they know. The Iraq war is full of examples of whistleblowers, who brought considerable embarrassment to US president Bush and British prime minister Blair. I should like to see a new whistleblower come forward and tell the truth that the security services are making up this story of me as a dangerous person and State enemy number one.”

I asked him what his inspiration was to blow the whistle; his answer was surprising:

”Hollywood! I saw movies on nuclear devastation like ”The China Syndrome” and ”The Day After”, and an example of moral integrity enacted by Meryl Streep in the film on Karen Silkwood. In 1986 we also had the Chernobyl disaster. All these impulses, together with my academic pursuits in philosophy and ethics, made it a matter of conscience for me to warn people and try to raise a public, democratic debate on the nuclear danger.”

And indeed the nuclear debate has been picking up in Israel in the months around Vanunu’s release. This whistleblower thinks it is high time that the State thank him instead of trying to punish him forever. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)