EDITORIAL

Volume 7 : Issue 2, June 2009 The Bulletin of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament & Peace

EDITORIAL / 1

Smitu Kothari / Obituary Note / Zia Mian / 3

A. OBAMA'S PRAGUE SPEECH AND AFTER / 4

I. Excerpts from US President Barack Obama's Prague Speech

on April 5/ 4

II. CNDP Press Release on Obama's Call for a "world without

nuclear weapons"/ 6

III. Neither Disarmament nor Peace / Economic and Political

Weekly Editorial / 7

IV. Response to President Obama's Prague Speech: Bridging the

Vision and the Corridors of Power / Judge C G Weeramantry

V. We Welcome the Initiatives for a Nuclear Weapon-free World

/ Statement by Japan Council against A & H Bombs / 9

B. TOWARDS NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT/ 13

I. Regional and Global Nuclear Disarmament: Going Beyond the

NPT / Achin Vanaik / 13

II. Imagine There's No Bomb / Malcolm Fraser, Gustav Nossal,

Barry Jones, Peter Gration, John Sanderson and Tilman Ruff/23

C. REPORTS FROM NPT PREPCOM MAY 2009 / 25

I. Letter from UN Building, New York / John Hallam / 25

II. NPT PrepCom concludes with agenda but no recommendations:

A qualified success / Michael Spies and Ray Acheson / 28

D. NUCLEAR POWER / 29

I. "The Politics of Nuclear Energy and Resistance": National

Convention / Concept Note / 29

II. Nuclear isn't necessary / Arjun Makhijani / 34

III. Is Nuclear Power a Viable Solution for our Energy Security?

/ Ullash Kumar.R.K / 37

IV. Support International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA):

Time to Ban the Bomb and the Reactor / Alice Slater / 39

V. Stories of Grassroots Struggle from Andhra:

Campaign against Uranium Projects in Nalgonda

/ Saraswati Kavula / 43

VI. Proposed Nuclear Power Plant at Haripur:

Chronology of Resistance / Santanu Chacraverti / 45

VII. Jadugoda Tribals Live under the Shadow of Nuclear Terror

/ Tarun Kanti Bose / 47

Contents

SINCE our last issue in March, there is

a complete standstill on the "nuclear

deal" front. The qualifying prefix,

"Indo-US", had of course become some-

what both redundant and misleading by

then with the 45-member Nuclear

Suppliers Group (NSG) eventually granti-

ng the hard fought for waiver, at the end of

a nail-biting tussle, followed by India sign-

ing the India-specific safeguards (i.e.

inspection - of its nuclear reactors volun-

tarily designated as "civilian") agreement

with the International Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA), on February 2 last year.

And, even more so, as the US appears to

have quite a few laps fallen behind the

major competitors France and Russia in

securing substantive contracts in the com-

ing days. The prefix of course remains pro-

foundly meaningful in tracing and compre-

hending the genesis of the "deal" and how

the US under Bush eventually pulled it

through amidst considerable rough weath-

er. How Pakistan and China were tamed.

How New Zealand, Ireland, Austria,

Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and

Denmark were finally bulldozed. (It is not

for nothing a spokesperson of the Indian

Congress Party had publicly suggested that

(just dethroned) Bush - a universally hated

figure - be honoured with Bharat Ratna -

the highest Indian civilian award, on the

occasion of the last Republic Day.) Be that

as it may, as we had reported last time,

India is yet to "ratify" the agreement with

the IAEA. The process remained stalled

understandably because of the intervening

parliamentary election.

2

While talking of parliamentary

election, the Congress has come

back to power, for another five-

year term, at the head of its some-

what retooled coalition, United

Progressive Alliance (UPA), with

significantly increased numbers,

though still quite a distance behind

the halfway mark on its own.

(Never mind the cacophonous

noises suggesting otherwise.) The

"deal" hardly ever surfaced as an

"election issue", rather surprising-

ly, given all the eyeball grabbing

tamashas enacted on the floor of

the Indian parliament in July last

year. That would, however, not

stop the ruling party claiming pop-

ular endorsement for the deal and

the further process to follow - i.e.

installation of new nuclear power

plants - is likely to be stepped con-

siderably up. The only possible

hiccup that is visible at the

moment is paucity of investible

funds given the serious downturn

in global economy. But that may

not be too great a hurdle.

It is precisely in this context, a

national convention on "The

Politics of Nuclear Energy and

Resistance" is going to held from

June 4 -6 in Kanyakumari, the

southernmost tip of India and just

a stone's throw away from

Koodankulam - site of an upcom-

ing nuclear power plant, to deliber-

ate its implications on the lives of

affected local populace in particu-

lar and people and environment in

general and chalk out appropriate

responses. This issue is dedicated

to that event. A number of articles

and reports of grassroots struggles

has been included here to befit the

occasion. Here, in this editorial

note, we would only recall that

nuclear power is, as of now, uneco-

nomic and highly capital intensive

and thereby the expenditure pat-

tern is overwhelmingly front-

loaded tending to crowd out all

other rational alternatives; it is

intrinsically hazardous across the

complete fuel cycle - right from

mining to power plant - as it

involves production and process-

ing of radioactive materials; there

is no safe and dependable method

for waste disposal let alone dis-

mantling of the outlived facilities;

it is potentially catastrophic - chill-

ingly demonstrated by the

Chernobyl accident on April 26

1986; has a large technological

overlap with the weapons pro-

gramme and thereby tends to pro-

vide a strong political push

towards that; and further accentu-

ates a highly centralised "develop-

ment" pattern which is by its very

nature deeply destructive of ecolo-

gy.

Coming back to the election,

that is now just behind us, it needs

be mentioned here that the Prime

Ministerial candidate of the BJP,

the second largest party, had made

a bold public declaration as

regards his determination to carry

out further nuclear test explosions,

"if required", to promote the

weapons programme just on the

eve of the fifth and final round of

polls. With that in mind, consistent

with our firm stand in favour of

global, regional and national

nuclear disarmament, we welcome

the drubbing that his party has

received. Regardless of whether it

has got anything to do with that

declaration.

On April 5, the newly elected

President of the United States

issued an open call for a "world

without nuclear weapons". We do

strongly welcome that even while

being keenly aware of the serious

limitations in terms of his refusal

to put forward a specific time-

frame and assertion of his faith in

the dubious "deterrence" doctrine,

even if only implicitly. Coming

from the mouth the head of the

most powerful state on the planet

and the only one which had com-

mitted horrendous mass murders

through the actual use of this

unique weapon, the declaration is

of historic proportions. It has con-

sequently reenergised the global

anti-nuclear movements which had

in any case been gearing up for the

upcoming (Nuclear) Non-

Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review

Conference early next year. (The

final round of the meeting of the

Preparatory Committee

(PrepCom) has just been over.)

The key towards the goal of uni-

versal nuclear disarmament, how-

ever, appears to be a Nuclear

Weapons (Abolition) Convention.

The then Indian Prime Minister

Rajiv Gandhi had suggested

broadly on that line at a special

session of the UN General

Assembly way back on June 9,

1988. That makes it especially

incumbent upon the ruling

Congress Party, swearing by the

legacy of the departed leader, to

push that "Peace Plan" with all sin-

cerity. We have included a number

of thoughtful articles covering all

these including a personal dispatch

from a delegate attending the

PrepCom.

At the end, we pay our rich

and sincere tribute to the memory

of Smitu Kothari, a longstanding

friend of the CNDP and the Peace

Now, who passed away on the

March 23 last.

3

SMITU Kothari, one ofSouth Asia's leading peaceand justice scholar-activists

passed away on March 23 last.Smitu was well known for hismany years of working on behalfof the poor and the dispossessed,indigenous peoples, people dis-placed by development projects,human rights, and many othercauses. He was also an importantfigure in the Pakistan-India peo-ple to people peace process andthe creation of a movementagainst nuclear weapons in bothcountries.

Over the past three decades,during a contentious period ofIndia-Pakistan relations in whichboth states developed nuclearweapons, diverse civil society ini-tiatives to build national andcross-border networks for peaceand cooperation have been takingroot. Over the years, it hasevolved into a sophisticated andinfluential people-to-people dia-logue at many levels. This citizens'diplomacy movement hasembraced thousands of activists,scholars, business people andretired government officials withinterests in issues ranging fromnational security, cross-borderconflict, development, education,ecology, the rights of women andminorities, arts and culture, andeconomy and trade, to mention afew. Travelling between the twocountries when visa restrictionspermitted, meeting in third coun-tries when opportunity allowed,Smitu was a significant player inmany of these efforts, including

as part of the Pakistan-IndiaPeoples Forum for Peace andDemocracy, founded in 1994.One of his last projects was edit-ing a volume of essays, "BridgingPartition," on the history, visionand experience of the Pakistan-India peoples peace processes.

A central feature of these civilsociety initiatives was a sharedvision that it was necessary tochallenge the state (be it India orPakistan) and its claim to define,represent and negotiate thenational interest. Nowhere wasthis challenge more importantthan the question of nationalsecurity and nuclear weapons.Smitu was involved with bothanti-nuclear movements in Indiaand in Pakistan. He recognizedearly on the need to organize andpresent the enormous diversity ofvoices, traditions and approachesthat make up the peace move-ment as an act of resistanceagainst the nuclear state, and as away to provide intellectual andorganizational resources forwould be activists and the public.This culminated in the edited vol-ume, "Out of The NuclearShadow," published in India in2001 and in Pakistan in 2002.

Smitu believed that a progres-sive anti-nuclear politics had to berooted in the lives and conditionsof ordinary people, in their aspi-rations for peace and justice, andin the struggle to transform thebasic structures that shape ourlives and societies, and the worldtoday. This view was expressedmost clearly in the introduction

he co-authored for "Out of TheNuclear Shadow":

"There is a hidden history ofopposition to the nuclear futurein South Asia. Far removed fromthe centres of political authority,at the sites where nuclear facilitieshave been and are being built, beit uranium mines or nuclearpower plants, local communitieshave fought back. Their strugglesare often not couched in the lan-guage of big ideas of socialchange and protest, but in thesmall traditions of livelihoods,community rights, displacement,the environment, public health,the right to information. Theyhave marched, fasted, blockaded,occupied, gone to court, theyhave protested to survive. As thestatements against nuclearweapons from scientists, academ-ics, journalists, writers and poets,doctors, former soldiers, civicgroups, and social movementsfrom India and Pakistan gatheredin this volume show, there arenow new forces joining the strug-gle….

The tasks that confront thepeace movements in India andPakistan are unprecedented. Notonly must they educate their fel-low citizens in what it means tolive with nuclear weapons in theirmidst, they must do so withoutcreating such fear that people areimmobilised. They must organiseto abolish nuclear weapons butcannot concentrate simply on thetechnology, politics, economicsand culture of nuclear weaponsbecause nuclear weapons cannot

Smitu Kothari: In memoriamZia Mian

4

A. Obama's Prague Speech and AfterI. Excerpts from US President Barack Obama's Prague Speech on April 5,

2009 on Nuclear Weapons and Disarmament

NOW, one of those issues thatI'll focus on today is funda-mental to the security of our

nations and to the peace of theworld - that's the future ofnuclear weapons in the 21st cen-tury.

The existence of thousandsof nuclear weapons is the mostdangerous legacy of the ColdWar. No nuclear war was foughtbetween the United States and theSoviet Union, but generationslived with the knowledge thattheir world could be erased in asingle flash of light. Cities likePrague that existed for centuries,that embodied the beauty and thetalent of so much of humanity,would have ceased to exist.

Today, the Cold War has dis-appeared but thousands of thoseweapons have not. In a strangeturn of history, the threat ofglobal nuclear war has gonedown, but the risk of a nuclearattack has gone up. More nationshave acquired these weapons.Testing has continued. Black mar-ket trade in nuclear secrets andnuclear materials abound. The

technology to build a bomb hasspread. Terrorists are determinedto buy, build or steal one. Ourefforts to contain these dangersare centered on a global non-pro-liferation regime, but as morepeople and nations break therules, we could reach the pointwhere the center cannot hold.

Now, understand, this mattersto people everywhere. Onenuclear weapon exploded in onecity - be it New York or Moscow,Islamabad or Mumbai,

Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris orPrague - could kill hundreds ofthousands of people. And nomatter where it happens, there isno end to what the consequencesmight be - for our global safety,our security, our society, oureconomy, to our ultimate survival.

Some argue that the spread ofthese weapons cannot bestopped, cannot be checked - thatwe are destined to live in a worldwhere more nations and morepeople possess the ultimate toolsof destruction. Such fatalism is adeadly adversary, for if we believethat the spread of nuclear

weapons is inevitable, then insome way we are admitting toourselves that the use of nuclearweapons is inevitable.

Just as we stood for freedomin the 20th century, we must standtogether for the right of peopleeverywhere to live free from fearin the 21st century. And asnuclear power - as a nuclearpower, as the only nuclear powerto have used a nuclear weapon,the United States has a moralresponsibility to act. We cannotsucceed in this endeavor alone,but we can lead it, we can start it.

So today, I state clearly andwith conviction America's com-mitment to seek the peace andsecurity of a world withoutnuclear weapons. I'm not naive.This goal will not be reachedquickly - perhaps not in my life-time. It will take patience and per-sistence. But now we, too, mustignore the voices who tell us thatthe world cannot change. We haveto insist, "Yes, we can."

Now, let me describe to youthe trajectory we need to be on.First, the United States will take

be abolished from South Asia orglobally while leaving everythingelse unchanged. The solution tothe bomb does not lie only in thearea of nuclear weapons, thebomb is not its own answer. Toabolish nuclear weapons willrequire confronting and trans-forming the fundamental struc-tures of injustice within and

between states and globally thatare the causes of insecurity, con-flict, and war."

His gentle presence, his kindvoice, and thoughtful and lovingwisdom, will be missed by many.

Zia Mian is a highly acclaimedPakistani-American physicist, nuclear

expert, an author and research scien-

tist at the Princeton University, US.He is a prominent peace activist and

closely associates with the CNDP,and Peace Now.

5

concrete steps towards a worldwithout nuclear weapons. To putan end to Cold War thinking, wewill reduce the role of nuclearweapons in our national securitystrategy, and urge others to do thesame. Make no mistake: As longas these weapons exist, the UnitedStates will maintain a safe, secureand effective arsenal to deter anyadversary, and guarantee thatdefense to our allies - includingthe Czech Republic. But we willbegin the work of reducing ourarsenal.

To reduce our warheads andstockpiles, we will negotiate a newStrategic Arms Reduction Treatywith the Russians this year.President Medvedev and I beganthis process in London, and willseek a new agreement by the endof this year that is legally bindingand sufficiently bold. And thiswill set the stage for further cuts,and we will seek to include allnuclear weapons states in thisendeavor.

To achieve a global ban onnuclear testing, my administrationwill immediately and aggressivelypursue U.S. ratification of theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty.After more than five decades oftalks, it is time for the testing ofnuclear weapons to finally bebanned.

And to cut off the buildingblocks needed for a bomb, theUnited

States will seek a new treatythat verifiably ends the produc-tion of fissile materials intendedfor use in state nuclear weapons.If we are serious about stoppingthe spread of these weapons,then we should put an end to thededicated production ofweapons-grade materials that cre-

ate them. That's the first step.Second, together we will

strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis forcooperation.

The basic bargain is sound:Countries with nuclear weaponswill move towards disarmament,countries without nuclearweapons will not acquire them,and all countries can accesspeaceful nuclear energy. Tostrengthen the treaty, we shouldembrace several principles. Weneed more resources and authori-ty to strengthen internationalinspections. We need real andimmediate consequences forcountries caught breaking therules or trying to leave the treatywithout cause.

And we should build a newframework for civil nuclear coop-eration, including an internationalfuel bank, so that countries canaccess peaceful power withoutincreasing the risks of prolifera-tion. That must be the right ofevery nation that renouncesnuclear weapons, especially devel-oping countries embarking onpeaceful programs. And noapproach will succeed if it's basedon the denial of rights to nationsthat play by the rules. We mustharness the power of nuclearenergy on behalf of our effortsto combat climate change, and toadvance peace opportunity for allpeople.

But we go forward with noillusions. Some countries willbreak the rules. That's why weneed a structure in place thatensures when any nation does,they will face consequences.

Just this morning, we werereminded again of why we need anew and more rigorous approach

to address this threat. NorthKorea broke the rules once againby testing a rocket that could beused for long range missiles. Thisprovocation underscores the needfor action - not just this afternoonat the U.N. Security Council, butin our determination to preventthe spread of these weapons.

Rules must be binding.Violations must be punished.Words must mean something.The world must stand together toprevent the spread of theseweapons. Now is the time for astrong international response -now is the time for a strong inter-national response, and NorthKorea must know that the path tosecurity and respect will nevercome through threats and illegalweapons. All nations must cometogether to build a stronger, glob-al regime. And that's why we muststand shoulder to shoulder topressure the North Koreans tochange course.

Iran has yet to build a nuclearweapon. My administration willseek engagement with Iran basedon mutual interests and mutualrespect. We believe in dialogue.But in that dialogue we will pres-ent a clear choice. We want Iran totake its rightful place in the com-munity of nations, politically andeconomically. We will supportIran's right to peaceful nuclearenergy with rigorous inspections.That's a path that the IslamicRepublic can take. Or the govern-ment can choose increased isola-tion, international pressure, and apotential nuclear arms race in theregion that will increase insecurityfor all.

So let me be clear: Iran'snuclear and ballistic missile activi-ty poses a real threat, not just to

6

the United States, but to Iran'sneighbors and our allies. TheCzech Republic and Poland havebeen courageous in agreeing tohost a defense against these mis-siles. As long as the threat fromIran persists, we will go forwardwith a missile defense system thatis cost-effective and proven. Ifthe Iranian threat is eliminated,we will have a stronger basis forsecurity, and the driving force formissile defense construction inEurope will be removed.

So, finally, we must ensurethat terrorists never acquire anuclear weapon. This is the mostimmediate and extreme threat toglobal security. One terrorist withone nuclear weapon couldunleash massive destruction. AlQaeda has said it seeks a bomband that it would have no prob-lem with using it. And we knowthat there is unsecured nuclearmaterial across the globe. To pro-tect our people, we must act witha sense of purpose without delay.

So today I am announcing anew international effort to secureall vulnerable nuclear materialaround the world within fouryears. We will set new standards,expand our cooperation withRussia, pursue new partnershipsto lock down these sensitivematerials.

We must also build on ourefforts to break up black markets,

detect and intercept materials intransit, and use financial tools todisrupt this dangerous trade.Because this threat will be lasting,we should come together to turnefforts such as the ProliferationSecurity Initiative and the GlobalInitiative to Combat NuclearTerrorism into durable interna-tional institutions. And we shouldstart by having a Global Summiton Nuclear Security that theUnited States will host within thenext year.

Now, I know that there aresome who will question whetherwe can act on such a broad agen-da. There are those who doubtwhether true international coop-eration is possible, giveninevitable differences amongnations. And there are those whohear talk of a world withoutnuclear weapons and doubtwhether it's worth setting a goalthat seems impossible to achieve.

But make no mistake: Weknow where that road leads.When nations and peoples allowthemselves to be defined by theirdifferences, the gulf betweenthem widens. When we fail topursue peace, then it stays foreverbeyond our grasp. We know thepath when we choose fear overhope. To denounce or shrug off acall for cooperation is an easy butalso a cowardly thing to do. That'show wars begin. That's where

human progress ends.There is violence and injus-

tice in our world that must beconfronted. We must confront itnot by splitting apart but bystanding together as free nations,as free people. I know that a callto arms can stir the souls of menand women more than a call to laythem down. But that is why thevoices for peace and progressmust be raised together.

Those are the voices that stillecho through the streets ofPrague.

Those are the ghosts of 1968.Those were the joyful sounds ofthe Velvet Revolution. Thosewere the Czechs who helpedbring down a nuclear-armedempire without firing a shot.

Human destiny will be whatwe make of it. And here inPrague, let us honor our past byreaching for a better future. Let usbridge our divisions, build uponour hopes, accept our responsibil-ity to leave this world more pros-perous and more peaceful thanwe found it.

Together we can do it.

[Source:<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009

/04/05/obama-prague-speech-on-nu_n_183219.html>.]

THE Coalition for NuclearDisarmament and Peace(CNDP) welcomes United

States President Barack Obama'scall for a "world without nuclear

weapons" and his assertion that"the existence of thousands" ofthese is the Cold War's "mostdangerous legacy". Equally wor-thy is his acknowledgement that

the US bears a special "moralresponsibility" to promote disar-mament as the only power "tohave used a nuclear weapon",and his emphatic rejection of

II. CNDP Press Release on Obama's Call for a

"world without nuclear weapons"

7

the idea that the spread andthereby use of nuclear weaponsis inevitable.

However, though he hastalked of quite a few specificmeasures, this call is not accom-panied by adequate changes indoctrines and strategic thinking.Obama continues to adhere tothe fatally flawed doctrine ofnuclear deterrence, rely on thedangerous "Star Wars"-styleBallistic Missile Defence pro-gramme, and stresses a strongernon-proliferation regime withselective application, rather thandisarmament. AlthoughObama's call for rapidly bringinginto force the ComprehensiveTest Ban Treaty and stopping

fissile material production asintermediate measures is wel-come, he has made no proposalfor nuclear weapons eliminationin the foreseeable future.

Despite limitations, Obama'sis a call of historic potential. Thestatement puts nuclear disarma-ment on the global agenda andopens an opportunity to makecreative, principled and realisticproposals for concrete stepstowards a nuclear weapons-freeworld.

We call upon the Indian gov-ernment to respond to this his-toric call by committing itself tothe goal of nuclear weaponselimination - regional as well asglobal - by updating the 1988

Rajiv Gandhi plan for stage-by-stage abolition of these weaponsof terror and by taking a leadingrole in the global arena to have aNuclear Weapons (Abolition)Convention as the instrumentfor effecting universal nucleardisarmament in a time-boundmanner.

AAnniill CChhaauuddhhuurryy,, PPrraaffuull BBiiddwwaaii,,GG.. SSuubbrraammaanniiaann

On behalf of the NationalCoordinating Committee, CNDP

April 13, 2009

BARACK Obama's selectiveplan for nuclear disarma-ment is meant only to fur-

ther the US' strategic objectives.United States President BarackObama's speech in Prague earlierthis month on the road to globalnuclear disarmament, the firstsuch statement since he tookoffice, will achieve much less thanwhat it claims to promise. Ofcourse, if one were simply tocompare Obama's intentions withthe record of the previous Bushadministration one could expressa mild sense of relief.

A public commitment to thegoal of a nuclear-free world hasbeen forcefully stated even, ifunsurprisingly, the time-scale forachieving this - "perhaps not inmy lifetime" - has been safelyextended. There will be negotia-

tions to conclude a StrategicArms Reduction Treaty III withRussia to make further mutualcuts in warheads and to reducedeployments. Some encourage-ment is to be drawn as well fromObama's statement that the US"will reduce the role of nuclearweapons in our national securitystrategy". Any retreat from theBush era's blurring of the fire-break between possible use ofnuclear and conventionalweapons in war planning will bewelcome. Best of all is Obama'sdeclaration that he will work toget the US Congress to ratify theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty,although New Delhi will not behappy to hear this, since a corol-lary of these efforts will be to putpressure on India also to join thetreaty. But that is about all as far

as positives go.Shortly after the collapse of

the Soviet Union and the end ofthe cold war, there was talk inEurope of the North AtlanticTreaty Organisation (NATO)either forgoing the nuclearumbrella altogether, or at least offormally abandoning its "FirstUse" doctrine even in the face ofa conventional attack. Indeed, a"No First Use" (NFU) commit-ment by all the existing nuclearweapons states (NWSs) barringIndia and China, which havealready declared NFU, is worthstriving for. But not only isPresident Obama not interestedin such declarations he hasendorsed extended deterrence, i e,the continued presence ofnuclear weapons in non-nuclearNATO countries, as well as justi-

III. Neither Disarmament nor Peace

Editorial, Economic and Political Weekly,April 18, 2009

8

fies Ballistic Missile Defence(BMD) preparations-emplace-ments in Poland and the CzechRepublic. These preparations aredirected against Russia and Chinaand represent US determinationto dominate a nuclearised outerspace. Pretending that Iran is thefocus of such emplacements incentral and eastern Europe, asObama said at Prague, is dishon-est and ingenuous since only themost strategically naïve will acceptthis.

For all of Washington's newwillingness to talk to Teheran, onemust distinguish between whathas changed - a greater flexibilityin tactics - from what has not,namely, the long-term goal ofstrategically containing Iran incentral and west Asia. While theUS is certainly opposed to Iranacquiring nuclear weapons, it isalso using this bugbear as a justifi-cation for squeezing and isolatingIran for geopolitical purposes thatare independent of the specifical-ly nuclear issue. In short, Obamais no different from his predeces-sors in seeking to sustain USglobal dominance and thereforein subordinating his nuclear poli-cies to this overriding concern.This then requires a thoroughlyselective and hypocriticalapproach to nuclear discourseand practice, i e, a divisionbetween the nuclearly "responsi-ble" and the nuclearly "danger-ous". In the former category fallthe US and its allies like UK,France, Israel, India and aPakistan state that remains out-

side Islamist control. China andRussia qualify by virtue of beingestablished nuclear powers, whichthe US does not as yet designateas obvious "enemies". In the lat-ter group are Iran, North Koreaand Islamist terrorist groups thatmight in the future acquire abomb. The three, especially thelast, are assumed to be somehowmuch more irrational (and there-fore dangerous) as compared to arationally behaving US that hasactually used, and repeatedlythreatened the use of nuclearweapons, as well as generatingwith Russia an insane arms racecomplete with huge overkillcapacities and stockpiles!

Obama has falsely accusedNorth Korea of breaking ruleswhen it has not, since it withdrewfrom the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) beforecarrying out a bomb test, and hasas much right as India or anyother country to carry out missiletest flights even as we can deploreall such tests by all countries. Asfor worries about Iran, all that theUS has to do is push for an earlyand unconditional establishmentof the Middle East Weapons ofMass Destruction Free Zone(MEWMDFZ) that wouldinclude Israel and which Iran andall 22 members of the League ofArab States have long supported.It is the determination to preserveIsrael's arsenal as part of a widergeopolitical ambition that is thekey obstacle to the establishmentof such a nuclear-free zone. Thefundamental thrust of Obama's

speech then is not towards theinstitutionalising of a powerful orcumulative momentum forregional or global disarmamentbut towards the institutionalisingof a stronger but selectivelyapplied non-proliferation regime.

When President Obama talksof strengthening the NPT hemeans suborning it so as to denycertain countries like Iran fromdeveloping a complete nuclearfuel cycle - hence the idea of aninternational fuel bank controlledby the US as well as some selectothers. Similarly, his support for aFissile Materials Cut-off Treaty isa deception since the US isopposed to bringing in stockpilereduction. The reality is that theUS and Russia already have hugestockpiles of such fissile materialsto which more would be addedwhen more warheads are disman-tled. Thus, merely stopping pro-duction is of no real consequenceto the big NWSs. Obama's pur-pose then in promising to hold aGlobal Summit on NuclearSecurity in 2010 is obvious. It is toobtain a wider, more multilateralform of legitimation for the USto continue with nuclear policiesthat - barring some positive steps- remain fully consonant with theoverarching perspective of sus-taining its global dominance.

[Source: <http://epw.in/epw//uploads/articles/13441.pdf>.]

9

Aworld free of nuclearweapons has been thedream of all humanity ever

since those dreaded weaponsfirst made their appearance onthe global scene. However, therehas always been a seeminglyunbridgeable gulf between suchdreams and aspirations and thethought processes that operatein the corridors of power. Therethey are dismissed as visionaryand idealistic, for the world ofrealpolitik operates on powerand not on ideals.

The speech of PresidentObama in Prague on April 5th2009 has built a significantbridge between the world ofaspiration and the world ofpower. Here, from the world'smost exalted seat of power, hascome a call for an end to thismenace which threatens thefuture of humanity, imperils allcivilization and jettisons the val-ues painfully built up over mil-lennia of thought and sacrifice.

The message that leaps forthfrom the heart of humanity forthe abolition of these weaponshas never struck an answeringchord from the wielders ofnuclear power. The convictionwith which President Obamaemphasizes America's commit-ment to a world without nuclearweapons sends rays of hoperadiating through the entireworld community.

For more than sixty yearssince Hiroshima and Nagasakithe world has been appalled by

the unprecedented power ofnuclear weapons to producehuman suffering on a scale nevervisualized before. Attila andGenghis Khan pale into insignif-icance as perpetrators of crueltywhen compared to the bomb.Yet this weapon which violatesevery canon of humane conductand humanitarian law has con-tinued to be protected by thosewho have it and to be soughtafter by those who do not, whilethe voice of protest passesmuted and unheard.

The easier accessibility ofthe necessary knowledge to puttogether a crude nuclear weapongrows by the day, and far fromhumanity being able to removefrom its horizons this threat toits very existence, the world per-mits the danger from this sourceto keep growing day by day,month by month and year byyear. Now more than everbefore, there is an imperativeneed for humanity to jettisonthis danger to its very survivaland the survival of all that itholds dear. As the President sorightly observes, the risk of anuclear attack has increased.Indeed it has increased to thepoint where we need urgentaction to eliminate it in the nextfew years rather than the nextfew decades.

Possessors of the nuclearweapon have propagated themyth that the possession of thenuclear weapon has kept us freefrom nuclear war for over sixty

years, when on the contrary ithas brought us near to totaldestruction time and again. Theerection of the Berlin wall 1948,the Suez crisis 1956, and theCuban missile crisis 1962 are buta few of a series of occasionswhen good fortune rather thangood judgment saved humanityfrom catastrophe. As PresidentObama has so rightly observed,"generations have lived with theknowledge that their worldcould be erased in a single flashof light".

These are reasons whyPresident Obama's speech needsto be greeted world wide withhope, support and admiration.Affirmative steps are urgentlyrequired from the power centresof this world if the desiredresult is to be achieved. The UScall is a great expression ofworld leadership in one of themost important calls to actionwe have witnessed in recenttimes.

When the 20th centurydawned there was a universalhope that the mistakes of theprevious century of war wouldbe left behind and that a brandnew century of peace could beplanned. That hope was bungledand humanity made a sorry messof the 20th century whichbecame the bloodiest century onrecord.

With the dawn of the 21stcentury there was likewise a uni-versal yearning for a century ofpeace. We have however entered

IV. Response to President Obama's Prague Speech:

“Bridging the Vision and the Corridors of Power”

Judge C G Weeramantry*

10

it on a note of war and if we donot correct our course, we willhave no 22nd century to put ourhouse in order. If the 20th cen-tury was our century of lostopportunity the 21st is our cen-tury of last opportunity, becauseno other century has com-menced with humanity havingthe power to destroy itself andall its achievements over the cen-turies.

It is in the next few yearsthat we need to put our affairs inorder on the nuclear front,because as President Obama hasobserved the risk of nuclearattack has gone up. Indeed thenuclear danger grows from dayto day. A number of differentcauses induce this urgency.Among these are;

� the growth in the number ofnuclear powers

� the growth in the number ofstates seeking nuclear power

� the increase in the powerand spread of terroristgroups

� the proliferation of the nec-essary knowledge to make anuclear weapon

� the easy availability of mate-rials necessary to put togeth-er a nuclear weapons withtens of thousands of tons ofuranium being dischargedfrom hundreds of nuclearreactors across the world

� the lack of a comprehensiverecord even by theInternational AtomicEnergy Agency IAEA, ofsuch material and the traf-ficking in such material

� the ever present possibility

of nuclear accidents withtens of thousands of nuclearweapons in storage andmany of them in readinessfor use

� the launch on warning capa-bility LOWC of severalcountries, with hair triggerdevices set to detect incom-ing objects and respond tothem within minutes, if notseconds

� the increase in the numberof mini-wars ragingthroughout the world whichcould attract the interven-tion of more powerful par-ticipants

� the increasing disregard forinternational law in theworld community

� the increasing number offlashpoints of internationaltensions

� the continuing disregard ofinternational law and inter-national obligations by thenuclear powers

� continued research on andimprovement of nuclearweapons

� the difficulty of maintainingnuclear stockpiles, inven-torising them, storing themand policing them

� the increasing number ofsuicide bombers now avail-able for carrying out desper-ate projects

The International Court ofJustice unanimously pronouncedin 1996 that there exists an obli-gation to pursue in good faithand bring to a conclusion nego-tiations leading to nuclear disar-mament in all its aspects under

strict and effective internationalcontrol. There can be no weight-ier pronouncement on interna-tional law than a unanimousdecision of the InternationalCourt of Justice. Any nuclearpower that disregards this deci-sion is a violator of internation-al law. President Obama's call foraction is an important steptowards upholding the integrityof international law.

For all these reasonsPresident Obama's statement isa landmark event on the interna-tional scene. It gives hope whereearlier there was total resignationto the inevitability of a worlddominated by nuclear weapons.It shows that the human spiritcan rise triumphant againstseemingly insuperable obstacles.It shows that we still enjoy thepossibility of visionary andhumanitarian world leadership.

As President Obama hasobserved the United States asthe only power to have used thenuclear weapon "has a moralresponsibility to act. We cannotsucceed in this endeavour alone,but we can lead it, we can startit"

Here is a clarion call toaction which cannot but inducehope and happiness in all whohave lived so long under theshadow of the mushroom cloud.It sends a thrill of optimism intothe hearts of those who havedespaired at the insensitivity thatprevails in high places on suchcardinal issues on which theworld has long waited for globalleadership.

In short, the Prague speechwas an outstanding statement byan outstanding leader on anissue of seminal importance to

11

the human future. The least thatcan be done is for all people ofgoodwill across the world to givetheir whole hearted support tothis magnificent new initiative towork towards a world which willlive once more without thenuclear weapon hanging like thesword of Damocles over the

human habitat, human civiliza-tion, human values and humani-ty itself.

April 20 2009.

* Former Vice PresidentInternational Court of JusticePresident International Association ofLawyers Against Nuclear Arms

Winner of the UNESCO PeaceEducation Prize

[Source: <http://lcnp.org/disarmament/2009April20Weeraman

try.pdf>.]

V. “We Welcome the Initiatives for a Nuclear Weapon-free World and Call

for an International Agreement on a Total Ban of Nuclear Weapons”

Statement by Japan Council against A & H Bombs (GENSUIKYO) on the Occasion of the3rd PrepCom. of the 2010 NPT Review Conference

WE pay tribute to the workof all governments andNGO representatives to

the 3rd Preparatory CommitteeMeeting of the 2010 NPT ReviewConference, and wish for a suc-cessful outcome of the discus-sion.

With the 2010 NPT ReviewConference just one year ahead,there is a real opportunity beforeus to make the world set free ofnuclear weapons.

US President Obamadeclared on April 5, 2009 that theUSA would seek the goal of aworld without nuclear weapons.On April 20, Russian PresidentMedvedev responded to it by say-ing that the work on a newSTART could facilitate theprocess of moving towards aworld without nuclear weapons.He further added that the BigFive, and Russia and the USA inparticular, had a "special responsi-bility" to achieve it.

For nearly 64 years sinceHiroshima and Nagasaki sufferedthe nuclear tragedies, the call ofthe Hibakusha, the A-bomb sur-

vivors, that the humans andnuclear weapons cannot co-exist,has been reaching the hearts ofever more people around theworld.

True, the situation on nuclearweapons does not allow easy opti-mism, when more than 20,000nuclear warheads are still stock-piled or deployed and when thedanger of nuclear proliferation isreal. However, while nuclearweapons have proliferated bothvertically and horizontally, theoverwhelming majority of thepeoples and their governmentshave refused to join in the nucleararms race and chosen a road tothe elimination of nuclearweapons. This is demonstratedby the large number of the gov-ernments that support nucleardisarmament resolutions at eachannual session of the UNGeneral Assembly, by the spread-ing nuclear weapon-free zonesthat cover the globe, and by thefact that of 190 NPT signatories,185 countries as "Non-nuclearweapons states" have chosen torenounce the "nuclear option",

and are placing themselves underthe non-proliferation obligations.

If the USA and Russia, thetwo major powers that hold some95% of the world's nuclear arse-nals, join in this global trend, andseek together to achieve a nuclearweapon-free world, the day willnot be too far to see the worldfinally liberated from the night-mare of nuclear annihilation. Wemust further take into accountother encouraging signs, such as,that the UK government is takingcommon steps in pursuit of anuclear weapon-free world, thatthe Chinese governments votesevery year in support of a UNresolution calling for a start ofnegotiations leading to the elimi-nation of nuclear weapons, andthat Indian leaders haveexpressed their support of a pur-suit for the elimination of nuclearweapons.

Making the best of all thesepositive conditions, we call on allgovernments, both inside andoutside NPT, to make intensiveeffort for one year to the nextNPT Review Conference to

12

broaden and consolidate anagreement to move the interna-tional politics forward towards atotal ban and the elimination ofnuclear weapons. Following threepoints are our proposal, which weconsider are basic to promotingthis enterprise.

1. Pursuing a political agreement on a total ban of nuclear weapons

First, we urge that a ban andthe elimination of nuclearweapons be made a consensuspolitical agreement to be pursuedby the international community.

We welcome all proposals putforward by many governmentsand NGOs that call for suchimmediate measures as; a furtherdrastic cut in strategic nucleararms in a new Russo-US treatyreplacing the current START-1,ratification and earliest possibleenforcement of CTBT, and astart of negotiations of a FMCTwith verification. As these are allto have been agreed upon by pre-vious NPT Review Conferences,they should be implementedwithout further delay, along withother agreed goals, including anuclear weapon-free zone in theMiddle East.

A simple accumulation ofpartial measures, nevertheless,does not automatically lead to thetotal elimination of nuclearweapons, as all past disarmamentnegotiations have amply provedit. To eliminate nuclear weapons,a purposeful effort is needed tomake it an agreed goal, start andcomplete negotiations on it, andagree on a binding treaty to banand eliminate them. The divisionand discrimination between

nuclear "haves" and "have-nots"embedded in NPT have created adeep rift and distrust betweenthem. If the full compliance ofnon-proliferation obligation bythe side of non-nuclear weaponsstates is needed, the internationalcommunity must also urge thenuclear weapons states to act bythe same rule, and thus overcomethe division, in pursuing a "worldwithout nuclear weapons".

We suggest that every armscontrol and disarmament agree-ment henceforth, bilateral andmultilateral alike, including a newtreaty replacing the currentSTART 1, will declare that it is apart of the effort for the totalelimination of nuclear weapons.Further, a world with no nuclearweapons will become possiblewhen only all sovereign statescome to agree on it. To this end,we call on all UN member gov-ernments to make all that theycan to build a consensus resolu-tion in support of a total ban andthe elimination of nuclearweapons, as well as the actual startof negotiations, in the forthcom-ing session of the UN GeneralAssembly. This will certainly laybasis for the success in the nextNPT Review Conference.

2. Overcoming NuclearDeterrence and "NuclearUmbrella" Doctrines

Second, a "nuclear weapon-free

world" requires a bold shift away

from the security relying on

nuclear weapons.

Since the nuclear bombs wereused over Hiroshima andNagasaki till now, the develop-ment of nuclear weapons have

always been promoted on theground that they are the meansfor "security" or for "deterrence".But what nuclear weapons haveactually posed was the grave dan-ger that would lead even to theextermination of the human race,and far from ensuring the "securi-ty". The reasoning, such as, for"security" and "deterrence", hasalso provided a strong incentiveto opponents to develop and pos-sess their own nuclear weapons.All cases of nuclear proliferationstarted from here.

To break with this viciouscycle, those who have nucleararsenals or those who rely onnuclear weapons of any othercountry should abandon thenotion of "nuclear deterrence",including "extended nucleardeterrence", the so-called"nuclear umbrella". We call forinitiatives for a ban on the use ofnuclear weapons, and above allfor a ban on the first use of them.Instead, the means for the securi-ty should thoroughly be soughtand found in diplomacy, such asdialogues, talks, negotiations andother peaceful means provided bythe UN Charter.

3.Telling real stories ofHiroshima and Nagasaki toSucceeding Generations

Third, we call on all govern-ments and NGOs to endeavor tomake known to citizens, andyoung people in particular, thereal stories and messages of theHibakusha, the A-bomb sur-vivors of Hiroshima andNagasaki, so that the humans willconsolidate their strong will tonot allow nuclear weapons onceand for all.

13

As humans created nuclearbombs, humans can abolishthem. Yet, a nuclear weapon-freeworld, thus emerged, will not bethe same world as it was beforethe bombs were used onHiroshima and Nagasaki, as thehumans have already knowledgeand means to build them. Anuclear weapon-free world willonly be sustained on the strongcollective will of the human racethat they will not co-exist withnuclear weapons". This is whatwe must build by telling the inhu-man nature of nuclear weapons

from generations to generations.It is essential in this effort to

ensure that people will know the"atomic hells" that the Hibakushawitnessed and the struggle theywaged for their survival. TheHibakusha of Hiroshima andNagasaki are being aged, and notmuch time is left. We express ourappreciation to many govern-ments, local communities andNGOs who have already invitedthe Hibakusha to speak or haveorganized A-bomb photo exhibi-tions, and further call on all gov-ernments to make many more

opportunities for the stories ofthe Hibakusha to be told and thephotos and mementos to beshown to their citizens towardsthe next NPT ReviewConference.

May 2009

Japan Council against A & H Bombs(GENSUIKYO) is the oldest and lead-ing peace organization in Japan, found-

ed on September 19 1955.

THE importance of the acces-sion of US President BarackObama for the prospects of

nuclear disarmament should notbe exaggerated. He is still pre-tending that the placement ofmissile interceptors in Poland andthe Czech Republic is about Iranand on this fraudulent basis is try-ing to negotiate with theRussians. But even though he hassaid nothing so far about thewider Ballistic Missile Defence orBMD project, and of courseremains hypocritically silentabout Israel's nuclear weapons, heis nonetheless seeking to negoti-ate with Russia about possiblearms reductions. This seems anopportune time then to revisit theissue of regional and globalnuclear disarmament and thisarticle is about where we standtoday and what future directionsin the cause of nuclear disarma-

ment may be worth pursuing.It is structured as follows: (1)

Explaining India's decision to goopenly nuclear in 1998 and themeaning of the Indo-US nucleardeal; (2) evaluating the NuclearNon-Proliferation Treaty (NPT);(3) revisiting the much debatedissue of the efficacy of nucleardeterrence; and (4) post-cold wardangers and what now?

Indian acquisition and theDeal

Much of the commentary onIndian acquisition of the bombhas seen a basic line of continuitybetween India's Pokhran-I test in1974 and those of 1998 when itdeclared its open nuclear status.This is certainly the basic argu-ment put forward by the pro-bomb Indian lobby that mostlyemerged after Pokhran-II with

one major qualification mademore specifically by the BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP) and theRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS). It was the BJP-ledNational Democratic Alliancethat formed the coalition govern-ment in 1998 but all the otherpolitical parties in the ruling coali-tion were kept completely in thedark about the decision while theunelected RSS was privy to thedecision to go nuclear.1 This com-bine claimed both continuity withthe past and a distinctive break -the decision was necessary anddesirable and largely prepared bypast actions but only the Sanghhad the "courage" to finally crossthe nuclear Rubicon.

Elsewhere the pro-bomblobby has insisted that continuitynot rupture is what ultimatelyexplains Pokhran-II.

In claiming as much, the

B.Towards Nuclear DisarmamentI. Regional and Global Nuclear Disarmament: Going Beyond the NPT

Achin Vanaik*

structure of argument has to leanmuch more strongly towardsemphasising the "logic" of"nuclear preparations" and thepolitics surrounding this, ratherthan towards the more complicat-ed, wider and uncertain "politicsof nuclearisation" as such. Suchan approach largely elides the dif-ference between the two politicalcourses. Among those who holdthis view are fierce critics of theNPT as essentially a charade.Adherence by many non- nuclearweapons states (NNWSs) withobvious nuclear capabilities to theNPT is then to be explained bythe fact that they are "thresholdstates" which lose nothing, indeedwhose status gets legitimised, byjoining the NPT. More conven-tional and more normal usagerestricts this label to countriesthat practised nuclear ambiguityand wished to maintain theoption such as India, Pakistanand, once upon a time, Brazil andArgentina whose eventual renun-ciation of the option is signifi-cant. Threshold status should alsobe distinguished from a postureof nuclear opacity of Israel andapartheid South Africa (theAfrican National Congress alwaysopposed such possession when inopposition), where post-apartheid renunciation wasindeed a meaningful step.

Broadly speaking there havebeen three general lines of argu-ment for explaining why coun-tries, including India, have goneor go nuclear. Even when sucharguments are combined, one lineis predominant. There arechanges in threat perceptions.There is the hypocrisy of nuclearweapons states (NWSs) (of whichthe NPT is emblematic) that pre-

sumably finally drives someNNWSs to go nuclear.

There are changes in eliteself-perceptions (much moreopen to internal pressures) thatprove decisive. Contrary to theexpectations of many an anti-nuclearist, hypocrisy alone doesnot produce any kind of comeup-pance for pre-existing NWSs, nordoes it drive potential NWSs tobecome new entrants. The rea-sons have to be far stronger,although the charge of hypocrisyis always a useful form of justifi-cation. The US, France and UKdid not go nuclear for fear of thenuclear power of another countrybut because of post-war elite per-ceptions. The US was declaring itsglobal dominance and sending amessage of its anti-communistdetermination. UK and France asdeclining colonial powers wantedto remain at the high table ofglobal powers and for France itwas also a way of declaring its rel-ative independence. The USSRand China were more obviouslymotivated by external threat per-ceptions, and for China, fromboth the US and USSR. India'sdecision was status-driven andnot threat- driven - akin to thecases of UK, France and USwhile Pakistan's was reactive andakin the cases of USSR andChina. The evidence againstassuming any line of continuityfrom 1964 or from 1974 to 1998is very strong. While the Chinesetest was a key factor in India ulti-mately deciding not to join theNPT (although it played a role inpreparing earlier drafts) 10 yearsseparate it from Pokhran-I. Thistook place in a context of consid-erable internal pressures on theIndira Gandhi Congress govern-

ment. It was called a peacefulnuclear explosion (PNE) andIndira Gandhi herself gave thebest explanation for it. "The PNEwas done when we were ready.We did it to show ourselves wecould do it."2 In 1977, PrimeMinister Morarji Desai of thepost-Emergency governmentpublicly announced his displeas-ure at Pokhran-I and renouncedfurther such experiments. IndiraGandhi as the prime minister of aCongress government in 1980announced that resumption oftests was conceivable but notbecoming an NWS.Consideration of testing betweenthen and 1998 by subsequentadministrations had to do withconcerns about technologicallyupgrading the option than withany determination to go openlynuclear. 3

Nuclear ambiguity or keepingthe option open yet not foreclos-ing or exercising it was the con-sensual posture accepted by allparties from the left to the rightwith the BJP seeing it as the low-est common denominator,although it and its forerunner (theJan Sangh) had demanded thebomb from the 1950s beforeChina, let alone Pakistan, haddeveloped it. That is to say, theBJP's consistent advocacy hadeverything to do with itsHindutva ideology of "unitingHindus and militarisingHinduism". In short, the story ofwhy India went nuclear in 1998has to be situated in the deeper,more encompassing story ofIndia's overall and steady drift tothe right from the 1980s onwardsin foreign, economic and otherdomestic policies. A realist, andespecially Waltzian approach,

14

15

with its "levels of analysis" theori-sation for separating the domesticand international is a particularlyinadequate lens for explainingwhy India went nuclear in 1998.In my book India in a ChangingWorld written in 1994 and pub-lished a year later, I made two pre-dictions (Vanaik 1995). I had saidthat of the three NPT holdouts -India, Pakistan, Israel - if any onewas to go openly nuclear, the firstwould be India. Israel's andPakistan's retention of capabilityor "bombs in the basement" wasalways much more strongly linkedto externally perceived threats andthus the two countries couldmore easily spell out the condi-tions under which they would bewilling to give up nuclearweapons. The Pakistan govern-ment since the mid-1980s hasrepeatedly made proposals fordenuclearising South Asia evenafter its Chagai tests. Israel hassupported a Weapons of MassDestruction Free Zone(WMDFZ) in west Asia but onlyin the context of an overall peacesettlement - a shameful and unac-ceptable form of international fil-ibustering. But even if in part orwhole this is diplomatic one-upmanship by the two countries itallows them a diplomatic coher-ence that India has never had(ibid: 83-84). My second predic-tion was that on the accession ofthe BJP to power "Finally, Indiawould go openly nuclear. The BJPis the only major party to official-ly say so and there is no good rea-son to doubt its determination inthis regard."4 While the India-Pakistan relationship has alwaysoscillated (periods of lesser orgreater tension) around the ful-crum of strategic hostility, the

dominant view in India's strategicestablishment about the Sino-Indian relationship is that its ful-crum has lain between the twoends of strategic friendship andstrategic hostility, closer to butnot congruent even with the pos-ture of strategic rivalry; hence thedeep uncertainty about how todeal with China.5 Immediatelyafter the 1998 tests, PrimeMinister Vajpayee publicly justi-fied these by referring to thethreats posed by Pakistan andChina, although, after the collapseof the USSR followed by China-Russia rapprochement, Sino-Indian relations had significantlyimproved with the signing of twotreaties easing border-related ten-sions. In fact such was the diplo-matic faux pas vis-à-vis an angryChina, that within a month theVajpayee government publiclydeclared that India's bomb was"not country specific" and withina year it was stated that it was "notthreat specific" either. Whatabout the Indo-US nuclear deal?Is it an example of wishful think-ing and incompetence on the partof the US and thus a spectacularexample of India outmanoeu-vring the US? On the contrary, inspite of the US' overall globalpolitical decline, the worldremains a "hub-and-spoke"arrangement with the US at thehub. The initiative for the dealcame from the Bush administra-tion and took India by surprise.Washington wanted to acceleratethe process of strategic partner-ship initiated by the Clintonadministration once it had recon-ciled to a nuclear India itself alsodesirous of forging a strategicalliance with the US and a muchcloser relationship with Israel.6 It

is the strategic pay-off represent-ed by the deal that is most impor-tant to Washington and it is will-ing to accept an India that will fora long time to come remain asmall nuclear power (SNP). In theUS-China-India triangle thefuture trajectory of the Sino-Indian relationship will be essen-tially determined by the US-Chinarelationship, which itself will bedecisively determined by USbehaviour with China as the reac-tive power.

India, post-1998 continued tooppose the BMD but abandonedobjections after the US abrogatedthe Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)treaty only asking now to be con-tractually and politically involvedin the process of preparing anddeploying the BMD-TMDs(Theatre Missile Defence) shield.New Delhi has endorsed, thoughnot yet joined the US- led and ille-gal Proliferation Security Initiative(PSI). It is also now a willing jun-ior partner of the US in theIndian Ocean and has a level ofmilitary cooperation (exercises,training and officer- exchangeprogrammes) with the US thatgoes well beyond what it ever hadwith the USSR. The US seesIndia, Japan and Australia as thekey nodes in the construction ofan "Asian NATO" (NorthAtlantic Treaty Organisation)with other south-east Asian coun-tries being invited to provide sup-plementary support.7 As recentlyas 23 October, 2008 India andJapan inked a declaration for a"Strategic and GlobalPartnership". India is only thethird country - after the US andAustralia - with which Japan hassigned such a document.

As for Iran, even the pro-US

16

lobby in India would have pre-ferred to pursue parallel paths ofsustaining and strengthening rela-tions with both since New Delhihas had a longstanding andimportant friendship with Tehranreaching back to the time of boththe Shah and AyatollahKhomeini. But the US forcedIndia to choose and it buckledunder the pressure as the Indianvote at the governing body of theInternational Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) showed, enablinga transfer of the Iran dossier tothe UN security council (UNSC)on the flimsiest and most unjusti-fied grounds so that the possibili-ty of punishment via sanctionscould now be exercised. The roleof El Baradei, who has beenunjustly eulogised in far too manycircles, needs to be properlyunderstood. The fact that ElBaradei has to maintain somecredibility for the watchdog roleof the IAEA means he has to dis-tinguish himself fromWashington. But at crucial points- allowing the Iran dossier to goto the UNSC, endorsing theIndo-US Deal, helping the US(which bullied "recalcitrants") toswing over the Nuclear SuppliersGroup (NSG) - he has fallen inline. The US' maximalist desire isfor India to give it significant sup-port in its efforts to isolate andweaken Iran. Its minimalist aim isthat India should not in any seri-ous way obstruct these efforts, ineffect its political neutralisationvis-à-vis Iran. India is operating ata position slightly above the min-imalist US aim.

Evaluating the NPT It is easy enough for all to

agree on the discriminatory

nature of the NPT, the perfidiousbehaviour of the NWS signato-ries in failing to live up to theirend of the bargain embodied inArticles I, IV and VI as well onthe inherent contradiction of thetreaty in simultaneously promis-ing to help NNWSs to developthe where- withal for a bombthrough promotion of a civiliandual-use programme as aninducement to formally abjure amilitary nuclear programme.

Thereafter differences inevaluation emerge. Some judgethe NPT to be a limited successfor two reasons. It has lastedwith no breakouts barring NorthKorea (which may well provetemporary) and has preventedhorizontal proliferation. But it isonly by insisting that the NPTmust not be seen as a "standalone" measure that one can giveit a "credit by association" as itwere. There have been limitedsuccesses in the field of nucleararms restraint (the ABM Treaty),reduction (the IntermediateNuclear Forces Treaty of 1987which did eliminate for the firsttime a whole class of arms), for-malised abstinence (nuclearweapon free zones - NFWZs).So future advances, like gettingthe CTBT into force or eventualsuccess in negotiating a FissileMaterials Cut-off Treaty(FMCT), would, presumably,lend new credence to the NPT.It would be wiser to subscribe toa much more negative evalua-tion. Except for the commit-ment to drawing up a CTBT thatwas the price to be paid byNWSs to get a permanent exten-sion of the NPT in 1995 (ameasure that further reducedwhat little leverage NNWS sig-

natories had) the NPT has beena "stand alone" agreement.

Management of nuclear armsracing allowing qualitativeimprovements in arsenals, along-side occasional quantitativereductions and restraint measuressuch as NWFZs have all takenplace independent of the NPT.So why has such an iniquitoustreaty survived and why have somany countries adhered to itincluding those with bad relationswith the US? Could this bebecause of the NPT's dual-usecharacter as well as its escapeclause (Article X) that allows amember-country to withdraw ifthe "supreme national interest"demands this? But this is a stan-dard clause in virtually all inter-state/international treaties. Onthe other side, why has the US inthe post-cold war era sought toundermine the NPT and moregenerally the non-proliferationregime so suitable for it, forexample, by rewarding India? Thepuzzle is more apparent than real.The US aims to extend its global(including nuclear) dominancewhich leads it to both use theNPT as cover and to defy itwhenever circumstances demandthis. Coming into force in 1970 byits first five-year review confer-ence in 1975, the NPT had 91state parties. By 1980 this rose to110, to 128 by 1985, to 138 by1990, to 178 by 1995, to 190 by2003. But was this post-cold warexpansion predominantly amanipulated one even for thestronger potentially NWSs? Wasit created by prodding and briberyof all sorts by the P-2? But canone seriously claim that Brazil,Cuba and some others likeArgentina and South Africa

17

(remember that the ANC alwaysopposed nuclear weapons) fellprey to this kind of manipulation?

There is a more plausible gen-eral form of explanation for suchmembership by potential NWSsthat took place at specific times inspecific historico-political con-texts. For some like Egypt,Switzerland and Turkey there wasa significant time gap betweensigning and ratification. For oth-ers the decision to sign and ratifycame later. Why with the excep-tion of North Korea has therebeen no withdrawal and why haveso few members (Iraq and Libya)sought to secretly build an arse-nal? As for Iran, given its dis-avowals and the willingness ofIran to cooperate with the IAEAthere is more reason to believethat the dominant elite view hasbeen of keeping the option openwith a current willingness to evenforeclose it if given appropriateinducements. The general pointto be made is not that the NPTitself has been such a barrier toproliferation (vertical and hori-zontal) and there- fore it hasendured but that potential NWSsfor one reason or the other decid-ed at different points of time tofinally renounce nuclear weaponsprogrammes and only thensigned/ ratified the NPT, and bar-ring a very few, have found noreason to re- evaluate that deci-sion. In some case this can beseen as confirmation of theassessment by fiercely independ-ent and often beleaguered coun-tries of the "strategic uselessness"rather than the presumed "strate-gic usefulness" of nuclearweapons.8 The NPT has been theexpression of a prior resolve torenounce. It should not be seen as

either a bulwark against horizon-tal proliferation or as some kindof trap to which potential NWSshave been lured or bullied into.The NPT should not be assignedany virtue nor should its iniquitybe exaggerated. It is best treatedas irrelevant. It cannot bereformed and there is no point indemanding its abandonment.Serious efforts at disarmamentwill need to ignore and bypass it.Harsher judgment of the NPTsometimes segues into seeing it asan unwarranted obstacle to even aselective spread of nuclearweapons to countries outside theexisting nuclear club, for exampleto Iran or North Korea, whichcould then be countervailingforces to the US's imperial proj-ect. This would be a good thingbut for the NPT. We return there-fore to the long debated counter-factual - the efficacy or otherwiseof nuclear deterrence.

Nuclear Deterrence and theWorld Order

Can nuclear weapons deter?The answer is yes. But deterrenceis not the mere registration of thisproperty. It is a rationalisation, atheorisation that constitutes amuch bolder and considerablyless plausible claim that this prop-erty is so strong and so lastingthat a country can rely on it for itsenduring security. To believe innuclear deterrence is to believethat terrible fear will alwaysensure that fallible human beings(state leaders and managers) willbehave as you want them tothough they and you operate incircumstances and conditions(sometimes of great stress) thatneither they or you can ever fully

control. Security, of course, is anebulous term which even whenit is understood conventionallyand narrowly involves aninescapable psychological ele-ment. The proportion of one-time believers, including top ech-elon officials of

civilian and military personnelin NWSs, who have defectedfrom belief in the efficacy ofnuclear weapons to the ranks ofcritics and sceptics is several timesgreater than defectors in theopposite direction. Illustrativethough this is, it cannot of coursebe a serious intellectual riposte todeterrence defenders. It isKenneth Waltz who can claim tohave provided the strongest suchfoundation through his cautiousconditional "The Spread ofNuclear Weapons: More May beBetter".

Waltz's argument for prolifer-ation cannot be separated fromhis overarching and foundationalinternational relations (IR) theoryof Neorealism or StructuralRealism. Severe weaknesses in hisbroader theory should alert us tobeing more critical in assessing hisspecifically nuclear arguments.Photorealism for all its parsimo-nious elegance and internal con-sistency, logically speaking,remains a deeply flawed theory oflimited explanatory power, ofeven more limited scope andgiven its positivism quite lackingany critical self-reflexivity. Somehave taken note of his "Realistabstraction of the differing socialcharacter of states" but the prob-lem goes deeper. His wholeapproach is ahistorical and asocialand as an IR theory has longpassed its peak of influence.From the 1980s onwards it has

18

been assaulted from certainstrands of feminist IR theory,from certain political economyapproaches to IR, from Critical

Theory, and most powerfullyfrom the Neo-Marxism in IR ofJustin Rosenberg and BennoTeschke (Rosenberg 1994;Teschke 2003).

While the "problematic ofthe International" like the "prob-lematic of the economic" isalways transhistorical, its properunderstanding must involve his-toricised and socialised conceptsand theories like those of Marx.Instead of Waltz's face-savingartifice of different "levels ofanalysis" he should have realisedthat interrogating the concept ofcapitalism, which bridges thedomestic and international, hasalways been the best way ofunderstand- ing modern geopoli-tics. It is not in the least surprisingthat his theory is inspired by bor-rowings from the utterly abstract,and socially and historicallyspeaking, barren conceptual fieldof neo- classical economics.Similarly, his thinking on thespecifically nuclear front isabstract, a-historical and asocial.Before examining Waltz's particu-lar failings in this regard, let usremind ourselves that all strategicnuclear thinking is inescapablyspeculative and must therefore bedisciplined by reference to (a)empirical controls, and (b) thebalance of plausibility in argu-ment. Take the "long peace inEurope" issue attributed to thecold war militarised face-off.There are three distinct claimsthat are made here. Nuclearweapons were necessary and suf-ficient to prevent nuclear andconventional war between the

east and the west. Nuclearweapons were necessary but notsufficient to pre- venting suchwars. Nuclear weapons preventedintra- European wars as well. Theopposing stance towards all threeclaims is that nuclear weaponswere irrelevant to the issue oflong peace.

But even a conventional warbetween the US and USSR wouldhave been third world war andworld wars are by their naturemulti- casual and a single-factorexplanation for their presence(though the trigger can be singu-lar) or absence is untenable. Theproblem with even the secondclaim is that it is still a single-fac-tor form of explanation of theabsence of a world war, even ifthere can now be a number ofsuch necessary single-factorswhose absence can also do thetrick. Of course after the cold warended intra-European wars erupt-ed despite the existence of anuclear overhang. Is it not moreplausible to explain the long peaceby the existence of a cold warglacis - itself a multi-causal phe-nomenon - wherein nuclearweapons were an expression andpromoter of cold war tensionsbut not a decisive cause of thisglacis? If one is to respect thelogic of Waltz's argumentativestructure, then deterrence worksand is stable only if confrontingeach of the NWSs has a crediblesecond strike capacity. A newentrant would have to be allowedtime to develop such a capacityagainst opponents, whether nearor distant. Since Waltz operatesthrough asocial and ahistoricalcategories he must provide anessentially "abstract rationalist"answer (backed by weak empirical

illustrations) as to why a newentrant will be given such timeand freedom from a pre-emptiveor preventive strike aimed at itsfledgling nuclear weapons system.Waltz would have us believe that apreventive strike would only hard-en the resolve of the targetedcountry to make successive futureefforts to make the bomb until itwas ultimately successful. Once afew bombs are developed deter-rence of a pre-emptive strike willsucceed be- cause even theabsence of the capability of, say, awest Asian country to make inter-continental missiles that can reachthe opponent will not be a prob-lem. Just the fear that a few rudi-mentary bombs can quite belated-ly be secretly moved by plane,ship or land to a distant enemy isenough of a deterrent. So a verysmall nuclear arsenal can serve asa credible second strike capabilityand this can be developed in avery short time (Sagan and Waltz1995: 19).

This argument is importantto note given Israel's history fromits bombing of the Osirak reactorin Iraq in 1981 to its 2007 bomb-ing of IAEA safeguarded facili-ties in Syria. There is higher plau-sibility in the belief that if pushcomes to shove neither Israel northe US will tolerate even a rudi-mentary Iranian nuclear weaponssystem and it is now very muchharder for a highly monitoredstate to achieve this secretly. Asfor the notion that a second strikeequilibrium can be reached quick-ly and then remain stable, all his-torical evidence indicates that thisis always an upwardly moving"equilibrium" related to thenuclear ambitions/preparationsof perceived opponents.

19

This brings us to the issue ofarms races, conventional andnuclear.

Yet another Waltz claim inval-idated by reality is that new andsmall nuclear powers are morelikely to reduce conventionalarms spending and not engage inarms racing once they acquirenuclear weapons. This has notbeen the case anywhere amongpaired rivals including India andPakistan precisely because nuclearweapons cannot do what conven-tional arms can do (ibid: 29).

But the greater embarrass-ment for Waltz is that no sensiblenotion of deterrence can explainthe ridiculous overkill capacitiesand the extraordinary range andlevels of tactical weaponry devel-oped by the US and Russia. Waltzcan only bemoan that rather thanpursuing "deterrence by punish-ment" the two great powers pur-sued (and in due course perhapsother NWSs might pursue)"deterrence by denial". The pointhere is that Waltz's overarchingNeorealist theory focused as it ison the primary goal of "survival"and the value of nuclear deter-rence in relation to this, has noroom for the reality that whetherbefore or after acquiring nuclearweapons, states aim to use themfor purposes beyond mere exis-tential survival and for generalforeign policy support. Thisdrives them to build a "ladder ofescalation" that, in turn, pro-motes a momentum of continu-ous arms racing. The "what if"question has to be addressed.What if, since there is never aguarantee against it, that nuclearweapons are somewhere, some-time used between nuclear rivals?Then the existence of a range of

different nuclear arms providestactical flexibility for trying tocontrol this "ladder of escala-tion".

Waltz's own view is thatshould nuclear war break out, itwill very quickly come to a halt - acomforting reflection designed toshore up his view of "more maybe safe enough" but hardly animpressive line of argument. Infact, Waltz in no way seriouslyinterrogates what can be calledthe "escalation dynamic" and cantherefore be more complacentabout nuclear weapons not beingused. While deliberate use ofnuclear weapons is not that credi-ble, one can credibly create a situ-ation - the Cuban crisis - wheretensions can escalate into anuclear exchange. Any number ofnuclear strategists from HenryKissinger to Thomas Schelling(but not Waltz) have developeddifferent models of "calculatedrisk taking" recognising that dif-ferent levels of nuclearbrinkmanship is very much a partof the larger nuclear "game" thatin reality is played once onemoves away from the simplifyingassumptions of Waltz. BetweenPokhran-I and Pokhran-II therewas no war between India andPakistan. In 1999 believing it hada "nuclear shield", Pakistanlaunched the Kargil war and bothsides readied their nuclear arse-nals for use. Shortly after the ter-rorist attack on the IndianParliament in December 2001,India and then Pakistan mobilisedover a million troops in all onboth sides of the border for some10 months till tensions weredefused with the help of the US.This was the largest and longestsuch mobilisation anywhere in

peace- time since the end ofSecond World War. Both sidesonce again made nuclear prepara-tions.

Subsequently in 2005, lieu-tenant general Khalid Kidwai, thehead of the Strategic PlanningDivision of Pakistan's NationalCommand Authority and one ofthe two "fingers" (the other iscurrent military

chief, lieutenant generalAshfaq Kayani) spelt out thecountry's nuclear red-lines, thecrossing of which by India wouldresult in the use of nuclearweapons - severe military defeatby India, serious territorialadvances towards any ofPakistan's major cities, economicstrangulation through a blockade,political destabilisation.

After the November 2008terrorist attack on Mumbai, thethen RSS supremo, K SSudarshan in an interview by afreelance journalist, declaredthat a war with Pakistan wouldturn into a nuclear one, but thatit was necessary to defeat thedemons and there was no otherway. And let me say with confi-dence that after this destruction,a new world will emerge whichwill be very good, free from eviland terrorism.9 Of course,Kidwai and Sudarshan are inlarge part displaying a mixture ofbravado and bluster. But boththe first is a vital decision- makerand the latter also whenever theBJP is in power. Such attitudesand beliefs are disturbing. Thelesson that needs to be drawn isthat in a context of enduringhostility, an escalation dynamiccan throw things out of control.Minor incidents can trigger achain of events leading to an

20

outcome - nuclear exchange -that neither side to begin withwould have ever wanted since itwould be completely dispropor-tionate to the purposes initiallysought by both sides. And this isa key point of weak- ness indeterrence thinking.10 There isgood reason to worry aboutIndia's and Pakistan's nuclearisa-tion and about further horizon-tal proliferation.

Contemporary Dangers: theWay Forward?

How then do we movetowards global and regional disar-mament? The two routes areobviously connected but not in amanner whereby movementalong the latter is made condition-al on forward movement alongthe former where the US hasalways been the biggest obstacle,the pace- setter in creating anddeepening the global nuclearmess. It has always been the casethat civil society pressure fromwithin the US againstWashington's global role, even asit is connected to civilian and gov-ernmental pressures from out-side, is the single most importantterrain of confrontation. Neitherthe rise nor decline of the greatindependent (not controlled bycommunist governments) anti-nuclear peace movements in thewest (and Japan) of the late1950s/ early 1960s and then inthe mid-1970s/early 1980s are tobe explained by reference to theNPT. Both the inspiration for,and decline of such movementshave different roots. The rise ofsuch movements was founded onthe growing "felt danger" amonga disproportionately middle class

base. This has been the sharedmass sentiment, the psychologicalglue that kept it growing. But nomovement based on constant fearcan sustain itself beyond a limitedtime horizon. Such a foundationis too negative a sentiment andwill also be eroded by the passageof time itself. As for the poorerparts of the world, other morebasic and daily "felt needs" ofpoverty, unemployment, inequali-ties of all kinds, have always hadgreater priority. This includestoday's India and Pakistan wherein any case the dominant attitudeamong the middle class is sup-portive of the acquisition ofnuclear weapons. So what now?In the post-cold war era, the dan-ger of a global holocaust hasgreatly receded even as a "limited"and regional assault or exchangehas grown. Two parts of Asiacause concern. Why then shouldordinary Europeans orAmericans feel so worried? Whyshould one feel surprised aboutthe absence of older- type massmovements in these parts of theworld? Fears about future con-frontation with Russia and Chinathrough the US effort to build theBMD and related TMD systemscould help to regenerate a massopposition within the US and inEurope to the US' plans of "fullspectrum dominance" of whichthis project is a part. But asidefrom such hopes the larger ques-tion is what should be the strate-gic line of march particularly inthe US of the anti-nuclear peacemovement?

This must lie in its participa-tion in a wider, more encompass-ing anti- war/anti-imperialistmovement. For all its unassailablemilitary strength the US can be

(and has been) politically defeat-ed. Over the last century and ahalf there has emerged (especiallyafter WWII) a growing disjunc-tion between military power andpolitical power/ success that hasthrown up strategic and intellec-tual problems that, Waltz and oth-ers in the realist/neorealistschool, cannot adequately handlebecause their understanding ofpower is so under- and poorly-theorised.11 The political defeat ofUS ambitions in west Asia sendsthe message that the mostextreme form of military power -nuclear weapons - is not a sourceof decisive or even significantpolitical strength. Successes inbuilding an anti-war/anti-imperi-alist struggle then facilitate thespread of a sentiment of anti-nuclearism. If it is accepted thatthis must be the key strategic lineto adopt, then it follows that it isthe deficiencies pertaining to thebuilding of such a mass anti-imperialist movement today thatare most important to correct,not so much the deficiencies inbuilding an anti-nuclear massmovement. And in this regard therole and impact of the NPT areof even less, if not nil, conse-quence. Of other possible scenar-ios, it is right to make light of thebogey of non-state nuclear ter-rorism, not just on the grounds ofimmense technical difficulties butalso because it assumes that non-state actors are somehow moreirrational when compared to stateactors. In fact the scale of inter-national suffering imposed by actsof state terrorism is immeasur-ably greater not because stateshave always had the greatermeans but because their terroristacts are harnessed to much more

21

grandiose ends - national security,defeating global radicalism,spreading democracy, protectingcivilisation, etc. Indeed, such stateacts of terrorism are not onlymore easily justified but all toooften they are not even seen asterrorism. Two of the six ideolog-ical banners that the US is usingafter the demise of the SovietUnion as part of its software forits current imperial project (thehardware requires various region-al alliances) are the "global war onterror" and "WMDs [weapons ofmass destruction] in the wronghands".12 The danger is not thelikelihood of non-state nuclearuse but of the US using this as ajustification for a possible smallpre-emptive nuclear strike to con-vey the message that non-stateactors should not even think ofmaking such a strike on US soil,indeed of even considering a"dirty bomb" attack or a conven-tional assault on a nuclear reactorto which the US response couldvery likely be nuclear. As it is, after1991 there has been a great blur-ring of the firebreak betweenconventional and nuclearweapons in US war preparationsand war doctrines. With NorthKorea wisely deciding to use itsnuclear weapons as a bargainingchip to obtain security commit-ments from the US rather thanrelying on them to provide an"existential deterrent strategy",the two other danger areas arewest and south Asia.

Given the absence of masscivilian pressure, all that can besuggested by way of positiveapproaches no matter how uncer-tain their achievement, would bepursuing the following objectives.

First, build pressure against

the BMD-TMDs and PSI proj-ects. There is some scope forfuture optimism here given theunease of some significantNNWSs besides China andRussia.

Second, promote the effort toestablish an early and uncondi-tional

WMDFZ in west Asia (noIsraeli filibustering) as the bestway to deal with nuclear dangersin this region. Iran and all 22members of the League of ArabStates have for decades demand-ed this and it is still for all its dif-ficulties of realisation, the bestpolitical route to take to outflankIsrael and the US and put themdiplomatically - politically on thedefensive. The alternative route ofIranian nuclearisation should notbe promoted or endorsed.

Third, while India will cer-tainly not accept a South AsianNWFZ there are ways of puttingpressure to this end by pursuit ofthree measures: (a) demand thatthe whole of Kashmir on bothsides of the existing ceasefire linebe made an NWFZ. Interestingly,though this idea was first floatedby peace activists in the two coun-tries after 1998, it was taken up inAugust 2007 by the ruling AllJammu and Kashmir MuslimConference on the Pakistan sideof the current border. Since nei-ther India nor Pakistan has sta-tioned or intends to stationnuclear weapons in Kashmir,acceptance of this demand doesnot entail any practical sacrifice. Itis also a way of their deflectingthe criticism often voiced in thewest and elsewhere of Kashmirbeing a "nuclear flashpoint".

This would be one way ofdeflecting all imputations of irre-

sponsibility which do irritate thetwo governments especially whencoming from existing NWSs. Ofcourse acceptance by the twogovernments would constitute a"thin end of the wedge", a way oflegitimising partial regional de-nuclearisation which is all themore reason to pursue this call.(b) The Maoists and other partiesin Nepal should be approached atboth the governmental and civilsociety levels to declare in itsforthcoming Constitution that it,like Mongolia, will be a single-state NWFZ thereby embarrass-ing its two nuclear neighbours. (c)Bangladesh is the one neighbourthat has publicly called for theestablishment of a south AsianNWFZ.13 As a transitional meas-ure, Bangladesh should explorethe idea of a stretching of theBangkok Treaty to include itself,thereby sending a message thatwill be uncomfortable to Indiaand Pakistan.

Fourth, work for the signingand ratification of the zero-yieldCTBT.

It is an important restraintmeasure on qualitative advanceson the US which is why Russiaand China are willing to accept itand why the Bush dministrationrefused to ratify it. Yes, it locks thequalitative lead the US already hasover other countries.

But does anyone believe it isbetter that the US has the free-dom to make further qualitativeadvances in such weaponry?Does anyone seriously believethat the gap would then reduce?And is it a bad thing for India andPakistan to be denied the oppor-tunity through further tests toreliably produce more advancedtypes ofnuclear weapons? The

22

new Obama administration maywell move towards ratificationand Israel has already endorsedthe CTBT. India and Pakistan arethe main holdouts and althoughnot signatories must also sign andratify for the treaty to come intoforce. They are quite likely to doso if the new administration inWashington applies serious pres-sure. One should also work forthe resuscitation of the negotia-tions towards a Fissile MaterialsTreaty but the final outcome mustincorporate the dismantling of allstockpiles held by the existingNWSs.

These are all worthwhileobjectives. But the challenge, ofcourse, is to make them morethan just a wish list.

* Achin Vanaik is a founder memberof the CNDP. Author of several

books. Professor in the DelhiUniversity. A co-recipient, with Praful

Bidwai, of the International PeaceBureau's Sean McBride International

Peace Prize for 2000.

Notes:1 See Chapter 4 in Bidwai and

Vanaik (2000).2 See Goldblatt (1985: 114).3 In 1995 during the intense

CTBT debate on whetherIndia should join up or not,the Congress government ofNarasimha Rao did considerhaving a test and then signingup to the CTBT but eventu-ally decided against it beforethe US discovered the prepa-rations and put pressure onthe government. See Bidwaiand Vanaik (2000: 69-73).

4 See Vanaik (1995: 12-13). As

far as I am aware no one out-side the Sangh parivar beforethen, had publicly predictedthis.

5 See Bidwai and Vanaik (2000:52-53, 69-74).

6 In the last few years it seemsIsrael has overtaken Russia asthe largest supplier of mili-tary hardware to India just asIndia is now Israel's numberone arms buyer. In the longerrun Israel (and the US) maywell enduringly replaceRussia as India's number onesupplier.

7 See The Indo-US MilitaryRelationship: Expectationsand Perceptions by the USDepartment of Defence,2002. This a report based oninterviews with 23 Americanmilitary officers, 15 govern-ment officials and severalmembers of the IndianNational Security Counciland outside experts advisingthe Indian government. Alsosee Tellis (2005) and Blank(2005).

8 Nuclear weapons possess a"threat power" so extremethat its fungibility or"exchange power" is negligi-ble. No wonder then that it isso difficult to point to serioussuccesses through nuclearblack- mail attempts at whichthe US is most guilty. Nowonder also that even in themost extreme conditions ofactual war between NWSsand NNWSs they have beenof no use, e.g., the US inVietnam, the USSR inAfghanistan and thatAmerican presidents (Reaganand Nixon) have expressed

their frustration over theirpolitical-diplomatic ineffec-tiveness when dealing withenemy states. Vietnam cancertainly develop a pro-gramme to build nuclearweapons if it wants to butdespite a 1,000 year history ofenmity with China, it hasdecided to renounce thisoption by joining theBangkok Treaty, i e, thesouth- east Asian NWFZ.There is as much if not moreplausibility in the argumentthat not having nuclearweapons affords greaternuclear security vis-à-vis anNWS than having them.

9 h t t p : / / c o m mu n a l i s m .blogspot.com/2008/12/text-of-recent-interview-rss-boss-it.html.

10 An excellent analysis of thiswhole issue is given by JeanDreze in "Militarism,Development andDemocracy" in Ramana andReddy (2003: 307-12).

11 The most serious intellectualcontributions to understand-ing "power" have never comefrom conventional IR theorywhich places such centralpremium on the notion butfrom the disciplines of polit-ical science and historicalsociology.

12 The other four are "humani-tarian intervention", regimechange in the name ofdemocracy, "failed states","war on drugs". Their manip-ulation is made more plausi-ble precisely because they arenot simply concoctions butdo refer to genuine problems.For an in depth analysis of

the six ideological bannersthat have replaced the oldcold war banner of "savingthe Free world from theCommunist threat" seeVanaik (2007).

13 Statement by Mr Masud BinMomen, Director General(UN), Ministry of ForeignAffairs, Bangladesh at theFirst Committee of the 62ndUNGA, 17 October 2007.

ReferencesBidwai, Praful and Achin Vanaik

(2000): - New Nukes:

India, Pakistan and Global

Nuclear Disarmament (New York:

Interlink Books).

Blank, Stephen (2005): - Natural

Allies? Regional Security in Asia

and Prospects for Indo-American

Strategic Cooperation, Strategic

Studies Institute of the US Army

War College.

Goldblatt, Joseph, ed. (1985): -

Non Proliferation: The Why and

Wherefore (London and

Philadelphia: Sipri Publications /

Taylor & Francis).

Ramana, M V and C

Rammanohar Reddy, ed. (2003):

- Prisoners of the Nuclear Dream

(New Delhi: Orient Longman).

Rosenberg Justin (1994):

- The Empire of Civil Society: A

Critique of the Realist Theory of

International Relations (London:

Verso).

Sagan, Scott and Kenneth Waltz

(1995): - The Spread of Nuclear

Weapons:

A Debate (New York and

London:WW Norton & Company).

Tellis, Ashley (2005): - India as a

New Global Power: An Action

Agenda for the United States,

Carnegie

Endowment for International

Peace.

Teschke, Benno (2003): -

The Myth of 1648: Class, Geo-

politics and the Making of Modern

International Relations (London:

Verso). Vanaik, Achin (1995): -

India in a Changing World:

Problems, Limits and Successes

of Its Foreign Policy (New Delhi:

Orient Longman).

* ed. (2007): - Selling US Wars

(Northampton,Massachusetts,

US: Olive Branch Press, Interlink

Publishers).

[Source: Economic & PoliticalWeekly, April 18 2009.]

23

THERE has never been a bet-ter time to achieve totalnuclear disarmament; this is

necessary, urgent and feasible.We are at the crossroads of anuclear crisis. On the one hand,we are at an alarming tippingpoint on proliferation of nuclearweapons, with a growing risk ofnuclear terrorism and use of stillmassively bloated arsenals of theworst weapons of terror. On theother, we have perhaps the bestopportunity to abolish nuclearweapons.

For the first time, a US pres-ident has been elected with acommitment to nuclear weaponsabolition, and President Barack

Obama has outlined a substan-tive program to deliver on this,and shown early evidence thathe is serious. He needs all thesupport and encouragement inthe world. We do not know howlong this opportunity will last.Unlike the last one, at the end ofthe Cold War, it must not besquandered. An increasinglyresource- and climate-stressedworld is an ever more dangerousplace for nuclear weapons. Wemust not fail.

Like preventing rampant cli-mate change, abolishing nuclearweapons is a paramount chal-lenge for people and leaders theworld over - a pre-condition for

survival, sustainability and healthfor our planet and future gener-ations. Both in the scale of theindiscriminate devastation theycause, and in their uniquely per-sistent, spreading, geneticallydamaging radioactive fallout,nuclear weapons are unlike anyother weapons. They cannot beused for any legitimate militarypurpose. Any use, or threat ofuse, violates internationalhumanitarian law. The notionthat nuclear weapons can ensureanyone's security is fundamen-tally flawed. Nuclear weaponsmost threaten those nations thatpossess them, or like Australia,those that claim protection from

II. Imagine There's No Bomb

Malcolm Fraser, Gustav Nossal, Barry Jones, Peter Gration,John Sanderson and Tilman Ruff*

24

them, because they become thepreferred targets for others'nuclear weapons. Accepting thatnuclear weapons can have alegitimate place, even if solelyfor "deterrence", means beingwilling to accept the incinerationof tens of millions of fellowhumans and radioactive devasta-tion of large areas, and is basi-cally immoral.

As noted by the Weapons ofMass Destruction Commissionheaded by Dr Hans Blix: "Solong as any state has nuclearweapons, others will want them.So long as any such weaponsremain, there is a risk that theywill one day be used, by designor accident. And any such usewould be catastrophic." Theonly sustainable approach is onestandard - zero nuclear weapons- for all.

Recent scientific evidencefrom state-of-the-art climatemodels puts the case for urgentnuclear weapons abolitionbeyond dispute. Even a limitedregional nuclear war involving100 Hiroshima-sized bombs -just 0.03 per cent of the explo-sive power of the world's cur-rent nuclear arsenal - would notonly kill tens of millions fromblast, fires and radiation, butwould cause severe climatic con-sequences persisting for adecade or more. Cooling anddarkening, with killing frosts andshortened growing seasons, rain-fall decline, monsoon failure,and substantial increases inultraviolet radiation, would com-bine to slash global food pro-duction. Globally, 1 billion peo-ple could starve. More wouldsuccumb from the disease epi-demics and social and economic

mayhem that would inevitablyfollow. Such a war could occurwith the arsenals of India andPakistan, or Israel. Preventingany use of nuclear weapons andurgently getting to zero areimperative for the security ofevery inhabitant of our planet.

The most effective, expedi-tious and practical way toachieve and sustain the abolitionof nuclear weapons is to negoti-ate a comprehensive, irre-versible, binding, verifiabletreaty - a Nuclear WeaponsConvention (NWC) - bringingtogether all the necessary aspectsof nuclear disarmament andnon-proliferation. Such a treatyapproach has been the basis forall successes to date in eliminat-ing whole classes of weapons,from dum-dum bullets to chem-ical and biological weapons,landmines and, most recently,cluster munitions.

Negotiations should beginwithout delay, and progress ingood faith and without interrup-tion until a successful conclusionis reached. It will be a long andcomplex process, and the soonerit can begin the better. We agreewith UN Secretary-General BanKi-moon that the model NWCdeveloped by an internationalcollaboration of lawyers, physi-cians and scientists is "a goodpoint of departure" for achiev-ing total nuclear disarmament.

Incremental steps can sup-port a comprehensive treatyapproach. They can achieveimportant ends, demonstrategood faith and generate politicalmomentum. Important disarma-ment next steps have beenrepeatedly identified and arewidely agreed. They remain valid

but unfulfilled over the manyyears that disarmament has beenstalled. The 13 practical stepsagreed at the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review con-ference in 2000 should be upheldand implemented. They includeall nuclear weapons states com-mitting to the total elimination oftheir nuclear arsenals; entry intoforce of the Comprehensive TestBan Treaty; negotiations on atreaty to end production of fissilematerial; taking weapons offextremely hazardous high alert"launch on warning" status; andnegotiating deep weapons reduc-tions. But at the same time acomprehensive road map is need-ed - a vision of what the final jig-saw puzzle looks like, and a pathto get there. Not only to fit thepieces together and fill the gaps,but to make unequivocal thatabolition is the goal. Without theintellectual, moral and politicalweight of abolition as the credi-ble and clear goal of the nuclearweapon states, and real move-ment on disarmament, the NPTis at risk of unravelling after nextyear's five-yearly review confer-ence of the treaty, and a cascadeof actual and incipient nuclearweapons proliferation can beexpected to follow.

Achieving a world free ofnuclear weapons will require notonly existing arsenals to be pro-gressively taken off alert, dis-mantled and destroyed, but willrequire production of the fissilematerials from which nuclearweapons can be built - separatedplutonium and highly enricheduranium - to cease, and existingstocks to be eliminated or placedunder secure international con-trol.

25

The InternationalCommission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmamentannounced by Prime MinisterKevin Rudd in Kyoto last Juneand led with Japan is a welcomeinitiative with real potential. Itcould most usefully direct itsefforts to building politicalmomentum and coalitions to getdisarmament moving, and pro-mote a comprehensive frame-work for nuclear weapons aboli-tion.

Australia should prepare fora world free of nuclear weaponsby "walking the talk". We shouldreduce the role of nuclearweapons in our own securitypolicies, as we call on nuclearweapon states to do. To ensurethat we are part of the solutionand not the problem also means

that the international safeguardson which we depend to ensurethat our uranium does not nowor in the future contribute toproliferation, need substantialstrengthening and universalapplication. Our reliance on the"extended nuclear deterrence"provided by the US should bereviewed so that Australian facil-ities and personnel could notcontribute to possible use ofnuclear weapons, and we antici-pate and promote by our actionsa world freed from nuclearweapons. Canada championedthe treaty banning landmines, orOttawa Treaty; Norway led theway on the cluster munitionswith the Oslo Convention. Whyshould the Nuclear WeaponsConvention the world needs anddeserves not be championed and

led by Australia and becomeknown as the Canberra (orSydney or Melbourne orBrisbane) Convention?

* Malcolm Fraser (former primeminister), Sir Gustav Nossal(research scientist), Dr Barry Jones(former Labor government minister),General Peter Gration (formerDefence Force chief), Lieutenant-General John Sanderson (former chiefof the army and former governor ofWestern Australia) and AssociateProfessor Tilman Ruff (nationalpresident of the Medical Associationfor Prevention of War Australia).

[Source: <www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2009/04/08_australians_nucle

ar_disarmament.php>.]

Dear Sukla,

I am writing this article in adark echoing corridor in the firstsub - basement of the UnitedNations building in New York.

It is full of people, bothnongovernmental organisationsand diplomats from all over theworld. As I write various Africandiplomats are talking loudly andit's hard to hear oneself think.

The place has that strange,subterranean, bunker-like, echo-ing quality that one might expectfrom STRATCOM orKosvinsky Mountain, though Ialways find the UN stimulating

and positive.What on earth am I doing

here, and why do I have a bluebit of plastic round my neckwith a 'D' this time (which enti-tles me to use the computersreserved for delegates, fromwhence I type) instead of theusual lowly 'N', for NGO?

I am attending the NuclearNon-proliferation Treaty (NPT)Preparatory Committee meet-ing, or 'PrepCom', leading up tothe 2010 review conference ofthe nuclear non-proliferationtreaty, arguably the worlds mostimportant treaty, and an interna-tional arms-control/disarma-

ment instrument at arguablyagain, has much to do with thesurvival of the human race.

NPT PrepComs and reviewconferences are one of a num-ber of exalted UN gatherings inwhich representatives of gov-ernments and nongovernmentalorganisatons from every nationon earth (except India, Pakistanand Israel in this case thoughIndia and Pakistan have beeninvited to send observers), gettogether to discuss matters thataffect the survival of the humanrace, and the media of the worldtreats it as if it had never hap-pened. Nonetheless, these meet-

C. Reports from NPT PrepCom May 2009I. Letter from UN Building, New York

John Hallam*

26

ings, and their success or failure,are of utterly vital importancefor the whole planet. From thegrimy passageway in which thedelegates computers sit youwouldn't know it, but you mightguess from the excited buzz ofmany languages and the self -important striding of delegatesfrom across the world, in darkpinstriped suits or nationaldresses.

For a number of years I'vebeen pursuing the issue of theoperational status of nuclearweapons systems, and have man-aged to take the issue to theUnited Nations, so the bowels ofthe decrepit old UN building inNew York has become ratherfamiliar, with the smoke-filled'Vienna Cafe' outside conferenceroom 4 the familiar rendezvouswith everyone from India's chiefof delegation to the diplomatsof Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria,Sweden and Switzerland sincethey decided to put up a resolu-tion on operational readiness ofnuclear weapons systems inoctober 2007.

I have attended just twoNPT 'PrepComs' and hope toattend the 2010 review confer-ence.

And this time I have had theluck or misfortune or whatever,to be going as an official mem-ber of the Australian delegation,along with Prof. Tilman Ruff,chair of ICAN.

This NPT PrepCom wassupposed to be different. As theoptimism engendered by theObama administration and thePrague speech was taken on bygovernments worldwide, it fil-tered into the rarefied atmos-phere even of this NPT

PrepCom, and the openingspeeches were full of urgency -and optimism. Surely, now thereis a US president that takesnuclear disarmament seriouslythere will be the possibility ofcompletely eliminating nuclearweapons and of taking the apoc-alypse - self inflicted, not thedoing of any vengeful andlunatic deity - off the globalagenda forever.

And sure enough, the mostvital thing - the adoption of anagenda for the 2010 review con-ference - was literally gavelledthrough by the chairman inrecord quick time without amurmur.

So far so good.The next step was the adop-

tion of a series of recommenda-tions from the PrepCom to thereview conference.

This is proving much moredifficult.

As I write, I have in mybriefcase, the first set of recom-mendations put out by the chair,followed by a second set put outin response to the reactions byvarious governments includingthe US and Russia, the NAMbloc, Australia, France, the EUas a whole, Egypt, and a bunchof others in response.

The first set was in my viewand that of the NGO communi-ty generally, already incompleteand weak though it did for thefirst time include language com-mitting to a possible nuclearweapons convention.

It also included languagecommitting for the first timesince the year 2000 review con-ferences commitment to the'total and unequivocal elimina-tion' of nuclear weapons, to

'going to zero' in nuclearweapons.

And it contained good lan-guage on operational status ofnuclear weapon systems.

The second iteration stillcontains the good language onop status but just about every-thing else has been diluted or hasdisappeared or been on one wayor another somehow blunted.

One can see the pressure,applied behind the scenes, by anuclear weapons establishmentthat does not intend to go quiet-ly.

As I sit, various groups are, Iunderstand, caucusing.

My own delegation hasasked Tilman and I for an evalu-ation and we've given it. It is dis-appointing, and could develop,alas! into an opportunity lost.

We can't afford to lose toomany of these opportunities.The UN may be all about talkand week - long negotiations onthe position of a semicolon. Butthe position of that semicolonmay be life or death for theworld.

Let's not blow it, please.John Hallam

P.S:A funny thing happened on

the way to the HAP reception...or when the wrong party is theright party.

A funny thing took place theother day.

I was invited to the recep-tion of the Hague Appeal forPeace to be held I was informed,on the 10th floor of the ChurchCentre, opposite the UN.

As I had been struggling forthe first few days of thePrepCom with the agonies of

27

gout and my left toe felt like ithad been dipped into either liq-uid nitrogen or molten lava, Iwasn't sure I would be able tomake it.

But at the due time, I made itacross the road to the ChurchCentre, and as I entered, so did acouple of diplomats.

I asked them if they were'going to the HAP reception'and they said yes they were.

They pressed 12th floor inthe lift. I said 'surely the HAPreception is 10th' but they said,no, its 12th and I went alongwith them.

As we exited the lift I recog-nised the room as being theboardroom of the InternationalPeace Academy, which is thekind of outfit that has variouscurrent and former heads ofstate on its board and would,naturally, have Ban Ki-moon asits patron. I'd debated formerambassador Chris Ford on oper-ating status in that room the pre-vious October.

I was met at the door byFrancoise, the man who'd organ-ised the debate. As we entered,TV cameras recorded us and wesmiled for them. Francoisebeamed.

The room filled up withindescribably exalted bigwigs,none of whom I knew in theslightest, and I languished (sus-

tained by exquisite nibbles andwine) until the Kuwaiti ambassa-dor rescued me with a pro-longed conversation about theglobal economic crisis. Kuwaitwas doing fine and buying every-one else at bargain-basementprices.

I then had a number of con-versations in which the subjectof operating status of nuclearweapons came up with variouspeople. Having a resolution inthe general Assembly seemedquite normal and even trivialthere. I felt I should be stuck tosomeone's boot.

Then, a funny thing hap-pened. The lights kind ofdimmed and someone familiarcould be seen shaking handsalong a line of people which Ifound myself in the middle of.

It was Ban Ki-moon.I shook his hand and had a

30 second introduction and hemoved on.

I think that at the time I didnot quite register what had justhappened.

The party went on and hemade a funny speech that left nodoubt that it had been him.

I think I had a drink or threeand found myself talking to alarge and friendly bear of a manwho did not let on exactly whohe was.

I talked as usual about oper-

ating status and nuke weaponsand he listened with intent inter-est.

Finally he had to tell me thathe was Ban Ki-moon's seniorpolitical adviser.

Exactly what he next said iskind of classified but was veryvery positive.

The party had more or lessended and people had mostlyleft.

I made to leave also and as Ileft I encountered Francoise.

I said to him something like'Only at this place can one havea chance conversation thatmakes complete global incinera-tion significantly less likely.'

Francoise beamed widelyand asked me for details which Isupplied. He beamed even more.

I left.As I left the lift stopped at

the 120th floor. Some peoplegot on looking like thay hadbeen at a function.

I asked if the HAP functionhad been on the 10th floor. Yes,they said, it had just finished.

Sometimes the wrong partyturns out to be the right party.

* John Hallam is a leading peaceactivist from Australia. He has

attended the NPT Prepcom as anNGO adviser (member) of the

Australian Government delegation.

28

BY the abysmal standards thathave typified the preparato-ry process-instituted in

1995-leading up to each five yearreview of the NPT, the third andfinal Preparatory Committee(PrepCom) meeting before the2010 Review Conference(RevCon) must certainly be con-sidered a success. The PrepComwas able to agree to an agenda forthe RevCon, on its third day, noless, amid a chorus of accoladesfor what many described as anew, positive atmosphere in mul-tilateral disarmament, stemmingentirely from US PresidentObama's 5 April speech inPrague.

However, it did not surprisemany delegates-most of whomare veterans of the so-calleddecade of deadlock that hadaccompanied the Bush adminis-tration's allergy to multilateral-ism-that the PrepCom wouldbecome snagged once it attempt-ed to work through matters ofsubstance.

The PrepCom's failure toadopt substantive recommenda-tions for the RevCon, a feat noprevious PrepCom had everaccomplished, may have tem-porarily tainted the atmosphere,but was not unforeseen. Duringhis opening remarks to thePrepCom, its Chair, AmbassadorChidyausiku of Zimbabwe, cau-tioned that despite recent signs ofprogress, in many areas the posi-tions of states had actually grown

further apart rather than closer.With this note of caution, on

Monday, 11 May, the Chair circu-lated a clever and concise firstdraft of recommendations,intended to capture specific pro-posals that identify concretepractical actions on implement-ing the Treaty, stand a reasonablechance of gaining consensus, andbuild upon earlier decision. Itsstrongest provisions dealt withmoving the disarmament agendaforward and even included con-sideration of a nuclear weaponsconvention.

It must be noted that the vastmajority of states could haveaccepted the first draft, includingmany members of NATO, withlittle or no modifications.Following consultations, and inparticular input from the nuclearweapon states, on Wednesday, 13May, the Chair put forward arevised set of recommendationsthat significantly weakened thesections on disarmament, civilsociety participation, and educa-tion, but bolstered those onimplementing the 1995 MiddleEast resolution and on non-pro-liferation.

For some, the second draftproved to be a bridge too far. Asthe conference moved into itsfinal hours, it devolved into atense blame game that pittedwestern delegations against theNon-Aligned Movement andsome of its more outspokenmembers, most notably Cuba,

Egypt, and Iran. On Thursday, 14May, the Chair advised states letthe recommendations go, as tonot to ruin the spirit of coopera-tion. Despite the Chair's judg-ment that the differences in posi-tion were too vast, a large num-ber of delegations urged theChair to continue the process ofseeking consensus.

The breakdown of the rec-ommendations process

Despite the positive atmos-phere, disarmament rhetoric ofthe US and UK administrations,and the quick adoption of theagenda, the PrepCom delegatesdid not find enough commonground - or at least, enough com-mon rhetoric - to agree to a set ofnon-binding recommendationsfor next year. Breaking with therecent past, the Chair decided notto forward the recommendationsto the RevCon as a workingpaper.

The Chair had introduced anewly revised draft recommenda-tions on Friday, 15 May.Delegations consulted with theirregional groups before resumingan informal meeting of thePrepCom. During this lastattempt to reach consensus onthe draft recommendations, theChair determined that theCommittee did not have a suffi-cient amount of time to reachagreement. Later, at a press brief-ing, he said the "differences werevery minor; with time, we couldhave done it."

II. NPT PrepCom concludes with agenda but no recommendations:

A qualified success*

Michael Spies and Ray Acheson

29

ALTHOUGH the tentative'Indian Atomic EnergyCommission' was set up in

August 1948 in the new andfledgling Department ofScientific Research, it was only onAugust 3, 1954 the fully-fledgedDepartment of Atomic Energy(DAE) was created under thedirect control of the PrimeMinister through a PresidentialOrder. The Atomic EnergyCommission (AEC) itself wasestablished in the Department ofAtomic Energy by a Government

Resolution of March 1, 1958. Justthree months after the DAE wasestablished, Prime MinisterJawaharlal Nehru unequivocallydeclared in a conference on'Development of Nuclear Powerfor Peaceful Purposes': "We wantto utilise atomic energy for gener-ating electricity because electricityis most essential for the develop-ment of the nation."

It is pertinent to reflect onwhat the Indian nuclear establish-ment has accomplished in thepast fifty years. In 1998-99 the

country generated about 90,000MW and almost all of this wasthermal and hydropower and theshare of nuclear power was aninsignificant 1,840 MW -- aridiculously low 2 per cent of thetotal energy production. Now it ishardly 3 per cent. The DAE failedto achieve their target of produc-ing 10,000 MW power by the year2000.

The fact of the matter is mostof the 14 units (two at Tarapur inwestern Maharashtra state, four atRawatbhatta in western Rajasthan

The differences, as laid outby delegations during Thursday'splenary discussion on the draftrecommendations, did not seemvery minor, though the revisionsin the third draft were quite min-imal. The additional changesbrought on board an additionalcaveat to the already thoroughlyconditioned preambular para-graph, further emphasized itsnon-binding character and mar-ginally indicative character-achange insisted upon by the UK.Other amendments made minorchanges to the sections on uni-versality, disarmament, non-pro-liferation, regional initiatives,and education.

Despite the lack of time tomake additional major changesto the text (delegations wouldhave needed to consult withtheir capitals had the seconddraft text been heavily amend-ed), western and non-aligneddelegations traded blame for theimpasse. Since the first draft wasnot agreeable to a few westernstates and the second was notagreeable to a few NAM states,it would be cynical and insincereto place "blame" on any particu-lar group or delegation. Instead,the experience only serves tofurther illuminate the wide gulfsbetween states' positions.

Paradoxically on the surface,

this result came as a relief tomany delegations. While the vastmajority of states parties seemedready to accept either the first orsecond drafts, no one was entirelycontent with either. Rather thanbecoming stuck with an imperfecttext, delegations will have thefreedom in 2010 to negotiate andreach agreement with a clean slateon the many fraught issues facingthe NPT regime.

* Lead editorial from the final edi-tion of Reaching Critical Will's NPT

News in Review,

D. Nuclear PowerI. National Convention on

The Politics of Nuclear Energy and Resistance

On June 4, 5, 6 (Thu, Fri, Sat) 2009

At Kanyakumari,Tamil Nadu, India

CONCEPT NOTE

30

state, two at Kalpakkam in TamilNadu, two at Narora in northernUttar Pradesh, two at Kakrapar inwestern Gujarat and two at Kaigain southern Karnataka) are besetwith technical problems. Dr. B.K. Subbarao, a retired naval cap-tain who is familiar with theIndian nuclear department,asserts that "the country's sixnuclear power plants with 14units are operating at low capaci-ties." A simple comparison ofnuclear power projects with hydroand thermal power projectswould show that nuclear energy isway too expensive and ineffective.If we consider the amount ofmoney, time, energy, human andother resources that have goneinto the nuclear institutions andtheir activities since 1948, we get aclassic picture of inefficiency andincompetence.

Present SituationThe DAE envisages a

grandiose three-stage nuclearenergy program that could con-tribute to achieving the country'senergy security (or some peopleput it, energy independence). Thefirst stage has seen the construc-tion of a series of PressurisedHeavy Water Reactors (PHWR).As breeder reactors (PFBR) markthe beginning of the secondstage, thorium-fuelled reactorsand Advanced Heavy WaterReactors (AHWR) will come upunder the third stage. Ever sincethe finalization of the India-USnuclear deal and the subsequentnuclear suppliers group (NSG)clearance, India has embarkedupon nuclear agreements andbusiness deals with Russia, UnitedStates, France and Kazakhstan.Russia has signed a commercial

deal with India to build four addi-tional nuclear reactors (besidesthe two reactors that are beingbuilt) at Koodankulam in TamilNadu. The United States is sureto get a big chunk of India'snuclear trade worth several billiondollars over the next two decades.

Areva of France has signed apact with India and is engaged indiscussions to set up two to six1,650 MW European PressurizedReactor (EPR) units at Jaitapur inMaharashtra and to supply life-time fuel for these reactorsthrough its uranium mines locat-ed in Australia, Kazakhstan andNiger. The cost of one EPR isestimated at between $5.2 and 7.8billion, but the final costs are sub-ject to negotiation. The India-Kazakhstan agreement involvesexport of uranium fromKazakhstan for India's civilnuclear program. Britain is alsovying for nuclear business withIndia.

Nuclear business is a lucrativeaffair all over the world. Evenmore so in India! So much moneyhas already been wasted onnuclear power projects and thecurrent cash crunch is mainly dueto nuclear power being veryexpensive, inefficient and capitalintensive. So the top officials ofthe Indian nuclear establishmenthave expressed interest in invitingprivate investments (which hasbeen set aside for the time-being).To reach their target of generat-ing 20,000 MW power by the year2020, the nuclear authorities saythey need a whopping amount ofRs. 800 billion. So they are con-templating about amending theIndian nuclear laws in order tofacilitate private participation innuclear power generation and

other assorted endeavours. Whatall this means is that while privatecompanies make money with noresponsibilities, the Indian taxpay-ers and the "ordinary citizens"will bear the cost of dealing withthe nuclear waste, decommission-ing the plants, environmentaldamages, public health issues andother dangerous consequences.

A highly populated countrylike India does have an increasingneed for energy. But then thatenergy has to be economical, sus-tainable and environment-friend-ly for the very same reason ofover- and dense- population. Thecountry needs to spend less onenergy because there are otherpressing needs such as food secu-rity, water security, housing,health, education, transportationand so forth. India cannot affordthe "use and discord" strategy asin nuclear power projects forobvious reasons of limited landavailability, future generation'sneeds and so forth. Its energyprojects have to be environmen-tally-friendly because even a smallincident can harm, hurt or kill ahuge number of people.

Nuclear WeaponsIndia's ambitious nuclear pro-

gram consists of not just nuclearpower generation but also nuclearweapons project. Anil Kakodkar,AEC chairman, has proclaimedrecently: "The international civilnuclear programme will be pur-sued without any compromise ondomestic autonomy and on thepursuit of usage of nuclear ener-gy for whatever purpose"(emphasis added, The Hindu,February 6, 2009). India's nuclearweapons program was started atthe Bhabha Atomic Research

31

Center (BARC) in Trombay. Inthe mid-1950s India acquireddual-use technologies under the"Atoms for Peace" non-prolifera-tion program. It aimed to encour-age the civil use of nuclear tech-nologies in exchange for assur-ances that they would not be usedfor military purposes. There washardly any evidence in the 1950sthat India had any interest in anuclear weapons program. Underthe "Atoms for Peace" program,India acquired a Cirus 40 MWtheavy-water-moderated researchreactor from Canada and pur-chased the heavy water requiredfor its operation from the UnitedStates. In 1964, India commis-sioned a reprocessing facility atTrombay and used it to separateout the plutonium produced bythe Cirus research reactor. Thisplutonium was used in India'sfirst nuclear test on May 18, 1974which was described by theIndian government as a "peacefulnuclear explosion."

Now India is believed to pos-sess 45 to 100 nuclear weaponswhile Pakistan is said to havesome 60 of them. According to areport in Jane's IntelligenceReview, India's objective is tohave a nuclear arsenal that is"strategically active but opera-tionally dormant", which wouldallow India to maintain its retalia-tory capability "within a matter ofhours to weeks, while simultane-ously exhibiting restraint."However, the report also main-tains that, in the future, India mayface increasing institutional pres-sure to shift its nuclear arsenal toa fully deployed status. Havingthrown all the high moral princi-ples such as non-proliferation,disarmament and abolition of

nuclear weapons, India is beingduped into a nuclear rivalry withPakistan and China with possiblearms races, militarism, poverty,misery, insecurity and underdevel-opment. The nuclear power andbomb programs are going toincrease the nuclear expenditureexponentially thereby divertingthe scarce resources from themuch-needed basic services forthe poor.'Climate Change' Claims

Although nuclear program isbandied about as the best answerfor climate change, there is verylittle truth to that claim. AsProfessor Amory Lovins, one ofthe world's most influential ener-gy thinkers, puts it: "If climatechange is the problem, nuclearpower isn't the solution. It's anexpensive, one-size-fits-all tech-nology that diverts money andtime from cheaper, safer, moreresilient alternatives."

It is indeed grossly misleadingto claim that nuclear power doesnot produce greenhouse gases(GHG). In fact, mining and pro-cessing of uranium, buildingnuclear power plants with anenormous amount of cement andsteel and long constructionprocesses, decommissioning thepower plants, handling theradioactive waste, caring for allthe cancer patients, dealing withall other public health situationsand all these procedures causeconsiderable climate-changingpollution.

As indicated earlier, nuclearpower does not produce much ofIndia's energy mix. Even if weaccept the DAE's dreamy figuresof electricity generation, we mustunderstand that electricity is asmall portion of our total energyuse. Most importantly, nuclear

power plants emit a lot of harm-ful radiation and radiation-pro-ducing wastes and sites that causemuch damage to humans, naturalresources, and the overall envi-ronment. It is not at all prudent toopt for radiation-pollution andDNA-change to answer thethreats of GHG-pollution andclimate-change.

New (Clear) Kid on the Block

The nuclear establishmentthat has been lying low withinsignificant power generationand secretive weapons produc-tion has become a major politi-cal player ever since the BJP-ledgovernment's nuclear testingand weaponization in May 1998.With the actual and potentialnuclear threats that India,Pakistan and the whole of SouthAsia have faced over the years,the importance of the nuclearestate in India has gone evenfurther up. This new kid in the'political power' block with aclear self-serving agenda is slow-ly gaining more and more politi-cal, military, economic and com-mercial strength and many morepatrons and friends.

The Indian state along withits nuclear hawks, almost all thepolitical party leaders, the nuclearestate comprising scientists, tech-nicians and bureaucrats, and thenuclear industry that consists ofIndian corporations, MNCs, andother business houses form akind of a profiteering nuclearconglomerate. Together theydefine national security, India'sscience policy, the new energyparadigm, and the very futurevision of the country. Without

32

any transparency, accountability,parliamentary oversight or popu-lar scrutiny and with unlimitedfunding, 'sacred cow' status,innocuous 'advanced science andtechnology' label, and the 'nation-al security' jingoism, the DAE isan undemocratic and anti-peopledepartment.

What makes it possible forthe DAE to keep several 'inci-dents' and 'accidents' under wrapsand to persist with the authoritar-ian tendencies and practices is theAtomic Energy Act 1962 thatclearly undermines India's demo-cratic heritage too. The AtomicEnergy Act 1962 has indeedbecome a potent weapon for theDAE officials to threaten andsilence the opponents and criticsand shun any public dissension totheir plans and projects. Section 3of the Atomic Energy Act 1962enables the Central Government"to declare as 'restricted informa-tion' any information not so farpublished or otherwise madepublic" and "to declare as 'prohib-ited area' any area or premises"where "production, treatment,use, application or disposal ofatomic energy or of any pre-scribed substance" is carried out.Leaping much further, section 18(restriction on disclosure ofinformation) restrains nuclearinformation sharing even morestringently.

To make matters worse, theSupreme Court ruled in January2004 that the CentralGovernment had every right tomaintain secrecy about nuclearinstallations and deny publicinformation about these in theinterest of national security,which was paramount. Althoughour Constitution guarantees us

the right to information videArticle 19(1)(A), these are,according to the court, subject toreasonable restrictions in theinterest of national security.Rejecting a petition by thePeople's Union of Civil Liberties(PUCL) and the BombaySarvodaya Mandal for makingpublic a government report onsafety of nuclear installations,submitted by the Atomic EnergyRegulatory Board (AERB) to theDelhi government in November1995, the Court ruled that thepetitioners were "not entitled" toget the document declared as"secret" by the UnionGovernment under Section 18 ofthe Atomic Energy Act 1962.

It is important to note thatthe petitioners did not ask for anyinformation about India's nucleararsenal or its storage site or any-thing like that but expressed agenuine concern that there wasnot enough safety precautions innuclear power stations in thecountry and any accident couldhave a disastrous affect on humanbeings, animals, environment andecology. The petitioners hadmoved the Supreme Court afterthe Bombay High Court hadrejected their petition in January1997. The petitioners had alsoraised doubt about the safetyaspect with regard to disposal ofnuclear waste.

The Atomic Energy Act 1962allows arbitrary suppression of allinformation --patently unconsti-tutional, according to V.R.Krishna Iyer, a widely respectedlegal luminary in India. The DAEis easily one of our most secretivedepartments and has much tohide: uranium mining hazards inJadugoda, excessive irradiation of

power-plant workers, waste mis-management, and numbersregarding explosive yields. Whena former Captain B.K. Subba Raoquestioned the DAE's nuclear sub(Advanced Technology Vessel)project, a spectacular Rs. 2,000crore failure, he was charged in1988 with spying with the ludi-crous evidence of his IIT-Bombay Ph.D. thesis for "espi-onage" and jailed for 20 months--until fully exonerated by three dif-ferent courts.

There is an added dangernow that the DAE is lookinginto ways of making amend-ments in the Atomic Energy Act1962 in order to have private par-ticipation in the future nuclearpower programs. The latest wordis that amendment to the act isunder consideration at variouslevels. Once the amendment ispassed in the Parliament, richpower barons could invest in thenuclear power program and reaphigh dividends while the Indianstate would subsidize nuclearresearch, enrichment of fuels,disposal of nuclear wastes,decommissioning of plants etc.with public funds. Thus theAtomic Energy Act 1962 wouldfacilitate the fusion of secretivestate, careerist DAE scientistsand greedy capitalists for privateprofit and the fission of Indiancitizens' safety, health and futuresfor several generations to come.

Inherent Dangers and PitfallsAccording to Anil Kakodkar,

AEC chairman, India should setup 40,000 MW reactors by 2020to meet its energy requirementsand become energy-independentby 2050 (The Hindu, February 6,2009). But this grandiose plan

33

does not say how much moneywill be needed, who will foot thebill, and if a cost-benefit analysiswill prove nuclear power worth-while and indeed profitable for a"developing country" like India.

In the name of nuclear powergeneration, the country is beingre-colonized with Russians,French and Americans operatingnuclear power plants all over thecountry and poking their profit-seeking noses into other areas ofour national life. These nuclear"East India Companies" cunning-ly incorporate local capitalists tosafeguard their position. Forinstance, the Areva chief has saidthat talks are on with severalIndian companies to manufactureparts for nuclear reactors for thelocal market and overseas(Business Line, February 5, 2009).These nuclear business deals arealso intricately linked to nuclearweapons program, conventionalweapons procurements, militarydeals and other devious things.

Although power is the pub-lic face of the Indian nukedom,bomb is its real face. This stronglinkage between power andbomb has to be acknowledged.The Indian nuclear weaponsprogram that often legitimizesitself by pointing out theChinese weapons and militarythreat has given rise to knee-jerkreaction in Pakistan. These twocountries have embarked upon alarge scale nuclear power gener-ation in Pakistan. Thus massiveproduction of nuclear energyfor weaponization poses a majorchallenge in South Asia today.This is bound to further createtension and conflicts leading tothe acceleration of the arms raceand militirization posing a severe

threat to peace and security inthe region.

Uranium mining, thoriumextraction and other such opera-tions along with their socioeco-nomic, environmental and healthimpact on marginalized commu-nities such as the tribals, dalits andfisherfolk in places like Jadugoda,Meghalaya, Hyderabad, and thecoastal villages of Orissa, AndhraPradesh, Tamil Nadu and Keralais another grave concern. Thenuclearisation of India alsoexhibits a blatant disregard tohuman rights of millions of peo-ple and the overall environment.The land rights, water rights, rightto life and livelihood are all seri-ously impeded by the nuclearestate and its institutions andagents.

Call for a NationalConvention

Seeing the nuclear programjust as a matter of science andtechnology, or economics, ornational security or developmentis an ill-informed approach.When all is said and done, thenuclear program has environ-mental, health, safety, demo-graphic, cultural and politicalsides to it. After all, nuclearism isa political ideology. It is slowlybut surely seeping into the dem-ocratic fabric of the country. Asa money-guzzling, secretivedepartment with strategic calcu-lations and environmental dan-gers, the nuclear estate abhorstransparency, accountability andpopular participation. As a total-itarian scheme with no room fordissent or debate, the nuclearestate shuns popular debate ordemocratic decision-makingprocesses and sees the Indian

citizens not as "energetic mas-ters" of a democracy but as"energy slaves" of a brave newnuclear world.

Dr. Manmohan Singh, theIndian Prime Minister who sin-gle-mindedly spearheaded theIndia-US nuclear deal, had put itsuccinctly in his convocationaddress in the Indian School ofMines on June 12, 2000 (pub-lished in University News 38(24), p.11): "Nuclear power pro-gramme which was initiated inthe country more than 40 yearsback has not progressed asenvisaged…the target of 20,000MW fixed in 1970 has badlyslipped… In many countriesnuclear power has been downgraded due to safetyhazards…There is an urgentneed to re-evaluate the role ofnuclear power taking intoaccount both relative costs aswell as safety hazards. It goeswithout saying that we needstrong and autonomous regula-tory authorities to check thesafety measures in all our atomicpower plants. The atomic safetyregulatory authority needs to bestrengthened and made fullyautonomous." Ironically, this isthe position we take now as Dr.Singh himself is trying hard tosell the money-guzzling, waste-producing, disease-causing andweapons-proliferating nuclearpower to the Indian public.

In the light of the above sit-uation and the overall dangerousthreats the Indian nuclear estateand its power and bomb pro-grams pose, it is high time we, allthe anti-nuclear activists, organi-zations and movements acrossIndia, came together and dis-cussed the socioeconomic-politi-

34

cal, environmental and otherconsequences of nuclearism andcharted out a national course ofaction to oppose the nuclearisa-tion of India's national futures.Delineating the nature of nuclearpolitics in India and its implica-tions to our national life, we needto develop a coherent strategy ofresistance against the nuclearestablishment and its projects.

Notes:1. The Comptroller and

Auditor General of India (CAG)has rapped the Department ofAtomic Energy for being unableto exploit the country's uraniumresources and running the nuclearpower plants at half their capacityor less. The DAE has respondedthat the CAG's observationsamounted to a "theoretical exer-cise that can lead to misleadingconclusions" and pointed out thatplants were being operated atlower levels to conserve fuel. TheDAE has blamed its inability to

open new mines on "hurdles"such as law and order issues andenvironmental clearances. Theunimpressed CAG has said thatthe DAE's "best efforts" were"belated" and did not yield thedesired results. See SandeepDikshit, "DAE pulled up fornuclear fuel shortage," TheHindu, February 22, 2009.

II. Nuclear isn't necessary: The notion that we need nuclear power to

address climate change does not reflect the realities of the marketplace

or rapid new developments in energy technology

Arjun Makhijani*

IT is now generally understoodthat carbon dioxide emissionsfrom fossil fuel burning are at

the centre of the climate crisis. Inthe electricity sector, that primari-ly means the burning of coal.China and the United States arethe leading users, and Russia,Germany and India also use coalas a mainstay of power genera-tion. Long-term assured carbonsequestration is not yet a proventechnology, and it is unclear whenit might become available on therequired scale. In environmentalterms, the world cannot affordnew coal-fired power plants;indeed, even existing coal-firedpower

plants may have to be phasedout before 2050. The nuclear-power industry, proclaiming a'nuclear renaissance', has suggest-ed itself as a saviour with a simpleformula: if you don't like coal,build nuclear plants.

Politically, support for newinvestment in nuclear power isgaining traction. In the US,Republican presidential candidateJohn McCain has pledged to build45 plants in 20 years if elected,while Democratic CandidateBarack Obama admits thatnuclear power is probably neces-sary to meet climate goals, condi-tioning his support on a prior res-olution of concerns about terror-ism, proliferation and waste.Across the Atlantic, the UK gov-ernment has stated its intentionof including nuclear power inelectricity plans, motivated mainlyby climate concerns. Asia, hometo almost all of the 35 new powerplants under construction global-ly in 2007, also clearly supportsthe expansion of nuclear energy1.

Considerable backing fornuclear power has also emergedin some unusual quarters. Perhapsthe best-known scientist advocate

is James Lovelock, who conceivedthe Gaia hypothesis, in which heproposed that the biological andphysical components of theEarth form a complex, interactingsystem.

According to Lovelock,renewable energy sources cancontribute only a "small" amountto the world's future energy mix,and there is "no chance" that theywill supply enough energy toreplace conventional sources onthe timescales needed to stem cli-mate change2. Hence, the worldshould "emulate the French",who get almost 80 per cent oftheir electricity from nuclear reac-tors, because it is "the only effec-tive medicine we have now"3.

Reliable renewablesThe common perception is

that renewables can provide onlya small portion of the energy sup-ply - unlike nuclear plants, which

35

can supply baseload power,churning out electricity day in, dayout for extended periods.

Actually, though, renewableenergy resources are plentiful, butnot fully exploited. For instance,the wind-energy potential of theUnited States is about three timesgreater than its current total elec-tricity generation4,5. And thepotential for solar energy is evengreater. Land area in the USsouthwest equivalent to one-eighth the area of the state ofNevada could supply all present-day US electricity generation6.About three per cent of the areaof Saudi Arabia could supply thepresent South Asian populationwith solar electricity at theEuropean average consumptionlevel of about 6,000 kilowatt-hours per year. Less than one percent of the area of the Saharacould do the same for Europeand Africa. In many places, solarscarcely needs new land area,because photovoltaics can bebuilt in modules on commercialrooftops, parking lots and otheravailable urban surfaces7, rightwhere most of the electricity isneeded.

Though intermittency ofsupply has often been cited as animportant disadvantage of windand solar power, it can be over-come by coordinating these ener-gy sources in a distributed smartgrid that tailors the shape ofdemand closer to the availabilityof supply. For instance, a newdevice, now commercially avail-able, integrates an ice-makingfunction into air-conditioners. Iceis made at times when electricitysupply is plentiful; air condition-ing is accomplished when theweather is hot, mainly using the

cold stored in the ice. In a smartgrid configuration, such deviceswould mainly be remotely con-trolled by the grid operator, allow-ing demand for air-conditioningelectricity to be tailored to itsavailability.

Furthermore, reserve capaci-ty from natural gas could beadded as the share of renewableson the grid reached relatively highlevels. Specifically, in the UnitedStates, natural-gas-fired powerplants, built on the incorrectassumption of perennially cheapfuel, are now idle more than 80per cent of the time8. In 2006 theUS natural-gas-fired capacity wasabout 340,000 megawatts exclud-ing cogeneration plants, enoughto supply about half of its peakdemand. This capacity could beput to excellent use to back uprenewables and would be suffi-cient to support a well-coordinat-ed wind and solar system provid-ing up to 40 to 50 per cent oftotal US generation.

And unlike nuclear powerplants, wind energy and solarphotovoltaics do not requirecooling water, which could be acrucial consideration for a reli-able power supply in the future.

Also worth considering is thatthe technology has now beencommercialized for storing heatin molten salts at concentratingsolar-thermal power plants. Plantswith sufficient storage to generateelectricity for 6 to 16 hours aftersundown are on the drawingboard. Widespread deploymentof this technology would reducethe need for natural-gas standbysupport for solar and wind ener-gy. After about 15 or 20 years,even the use of natural gas forelectricity generation can gradual-

ly be phased out.

Consider the costsAnother of the supposed

benefits of nuclear energy is itsreputed low cost, but this is trueonly of existing depreciatedplants, for which fuel and operat-ing costs are the main cost ele-ments. For new plants, capitalcosts dominate, and for those inthe planning stage today, nuclear-industry and Wall Street capitalcost estimates are in the range ofUS $5,000 to US $8,000 per kilo-watt. This implies total electricitycosts of 10 to 17 cents per kilo-watt-hour, assuming a privatelyowned power plant with no subsi-dies other than insurance.

A case in point is the reactorbeing built in Finland by theFrench company AREVA, thefirst such plant to be built inEurope in 15 years. Its cost hasrisen from euro-dollar 3 billion toeuro-dollar 4.5 billion - or aboutUS $4,200 per kilowatt - plus sub-stantial penalties for delays. It hasrun two years over schedule and isnow due to come online in 2011.

In comparison, wind energy,at 8 to 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, is already more economical.And though solar-photovoltaicelectricity is more expensive thannuclear today, on average, theenergy industry is still in the earlystages of a shake-out between thevarious technologies. Forinstance, new large-scale solar-photovoltaic plants ordered bythe California utility Pacific Gasand Electric are expected to yieldelectricity costs that are about thesame as wind-generated electricityor concentrating solar powerplants9.

Unlike that of nuclear power

36

plants, the cost of solar-thermalpower is actually declining and isexpected to fall below 10 centsper kilowatt-hour within the nextdecade10. Moreover, concentratingsolar-thermal power plants cur-rently can compete with nuclearon cost. For instance, ArizonaPublic Service has signed a con-tract with a Spanish company,Abengoa Solar, for a 280-megawatt plant at about 14 centsper kilowatt-hour. The plant willhave six hours of heat storageand will be available to supplyelectricity about 90 per cent ofthe time on hot summer days andevenings - the time of peakdemand5.

But the economic costs ofexpanding nuclear energy pale incomparison to the potential envi-ronmental costs. Even those whosupport a new generation ofnuclear power plants are uncer-tain how to deal with the wastethat the industry has created inthe past. France, which supposed-ly 'recycles' its nuclear waste, actu-ally uses only one per cent of it asfuel, the plutonium part, separat-ed in a reprocessing plant at LaHague on the Normandy penin-sula. Of the 95 per cent that iscontaminated uranium, it has sentsome to Russia. Most of the restis piling up in France and mayhave to be declared as waste in theabsence of even more costlybreeder reactors and reprocessingplants to convert the uranium-238 to plutonium.

Even if we ignore the perilsof nuclear proliferation, globalefforts to commercialize the plu-tonium economy have failed aftermore than half a century and US$100 billion in expenditures11. Adeep geologic repository will now

be needed for the high-levelreprocessing waste that is pilingup at La Hague in the form ofradioactive glass logs.

Roughly 400 million litres oflow-level liquid radioactive wastepour into the English Channeleach year from the La Haguereprocessing plant, and similardischarges from any newly builtfacilities would be a concern.

Expansion of nuclear energywould doubtless leave large areasof land covered with uranium-mill tailings threatening futurewater supplies with contamina-tion by radium-226 and thorium-230, which have half-lives of1,600 years and 75,000 years,respectively.

Even a program designed tomaintain the 16-per-cent shareof global electricity that nuclearhas at present would need anestimated one thousand reac-tors and create considerablerisks12. Multiplying the reactorsand spent-fuel storage facilitiescould also raise the number oftargets for terrorist attacks, cre-ating security risks.

Then there are the prolifera-tion problems of plutonium.More than 80 tonnes of surplusseparated commercial plutoni-um - about 10,000 bombs' worth- is stored at La Hague, secondonly to the British stock of over100 tonnes at Sellafield. To emu-late France and get three-fourthsof global electricity from nuclearpower, the world would have tobuild more than two reactors ofone gigawatt each per week overthe next 42 years.

Supplying them with fuelwould require about four newuranium-enrichment plants to bebuilt somewhere in the world

each year. Today, just one suchplant - being built in Iran, wherethe government claims it is forpeaceful purposes - is at the cen-tre of a major global diplomaticcrisis.

The notion that nuclearpower is necessary to addressclimate change does not reflect aclose examination of the reali-ties of the marketplace or rapidnew developments in solar ener-gy, wind energy and energy stor-age technologies. Indeed, cur-rent cost trends indicate thatnew nuclear power plants arelikely to be economically obso-lete even before the first newones come online in the UnitedStates. Relying mainly on largepower plants in a centralizedgrid today is the electrical equiv-alent of depending on punchcards and mainframe computers- clunky, costly, risky, inefficientand unnecessary. The age of lap-tops and the Internet offers theopportunity of solving the cli-mate crisis by moving to a worldof smart, secure, distributed,efficient and fully renewablegrids. For the sake of environ-mental health, global security andthe economy, we should seize themoment and get it done.

October 2 2008

* Arjun Makhijani is president ofthe Maryland-based Institute forEnergy and Environment Research andauthor of the 2008 book Carbon-Freeand Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for USEnergy Policy.

[Source:<http://www.nature.com/cli-

mate/2008/0810/full/cli-mate.2008.103.html>.]

37

Notes:1. Schiermeier, Q., Tollefson, J.,

Scully, T., Witze, A. & Morton, O.Nature 454, 816-823 (2008).

2. Lovelock, J. The Independent 24May 2004;http://www.independent.co.uk/ opinion/commentators/james-love-lock-nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution-564446.html

3. Lovelock, J. The Sunday Times18 February 2007;http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1400073.ece

4. American Wind EnergyAssociation. Wind Web Tutorial;http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_potential.html

5. Musial, W. in Wind PoweringAmerica Annual State Summit(Evergreen,Colorado, 19 May 2005);http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamer-ica/pdfs/workshops/2005_sum-mit/musial.pdf

6. Solar Energy TechnologiesProgram. Report to Congress on

Assessment of Potential Impact ofConcentrating Solar Power forElectricity Generation.Report no. DOE/GO-12007-2400,7 (US Department of Energy,Washington DC, February 2007);http://www.nrel.gov/csp/trough-net/pdfs/41233.pdf

7. US National Renewable EnergyLaboratory. PV FAQs. Report no.DOE/GO-102004-1835 (USDepartment of Energy,Washington DC, February 2004);http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/35097.pdf

8. Energy Information Administration.Electricity Power Annual 2006.Report no. DOE/EIA-0348, 16, 21(US Department of Energy,Washington DC, 22 October2007);http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html;http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfile2_1.xls

9. Wald, M. The New York Times 14August 2008;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/15solar.html

10. Energy Information Administration.Electricity Power Annual 2006.Report no. DOE/EIA-0348, 34(US Department of Energy,Washington DC, 22October 2007);http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec-tricity/epa/epat3p2.html

11. Makhijani, A. Plutonium EndGame: Managing Global Stocks ofSeparated Weapons-UsableCommercial and Surplus NuclearWeapons Plutonium (Institutefor Energy and EnvironmentalResearch, Takoma Park,Maryland, January 2001);http://www.ieer.org/reports/pu/index.html

12. Smith, B. Insurmountable Risks:The Dangers of Using NuclearPower to Combat Global ClimateChange (IEER Press and RDRBooks, 2006).

III. Is Nuclear Power - Economically, Environmentally or Socially -

A Viable Solution for our Energy Security?

Ullash Kumar R.K.*

AT this time, when theAtomic EnergyCommission, our national

leaders, experts etc are advocat-ing Nuclear (Fission) Power(NP) for energy security of thecountry and to sustain an eco-nomic growth rate of about 10% plus per annum, it is impor-tant that the facts are madeknown without distortions andthat legitimate arguments forand against nuclear power areheard and given due considera-tion, before plunging for nuclearpower in a big way.

Does Nuclear Power provideEnergy Security?If the entire economically acces-

sible conventional Uranium -235, the only naturally occurringnuclear fission fuel resources onthe planet (currently and future),are estimated to last for onlynext 50 years, at the current levelof nuclear power production,now revised to 100 years(IAEArelease, June 3, 2008), how doesit provide global energy security?How can it be classified asrenewable sources of energy orreplenishable?

If India has to depend onimported nuclear fuel (uranium)and imported reactors depend-ent on imported enriched urani-um, how is the country's energysecurity guaranteed? In India,the present installed capacity of

the nuclear power plants isreported to be about 4,000 MW,less than 3% of total reportedinstalled capacity of 1,60,000MW of electricity and muchlower than the installed capacityof wind mills. Even assumingthat India, with signing of the"123 Agreement" with the USA,will achieve the projected targetof 60,000 MW Nuclear Powercapacity by 2031-32, at hugeeconomic, environmental andsocial costs, it will hardly be7.5% of total projected capaci-ty requirement of 8,00,000 MWby then.

IIss NNuucclleeaarr PPoowweerr CChheeaapp??During the initial years of devel-

38

opment of nuclear energy,almost half a century ago, thescientists held out a hope thatpower from nuclear energywould be so cheap that wewould not be required to 'meter'electricity. However, over theyears it has become clear thatthere are heavy costs involved inproducing power from nuclearenergy. The capital costs in set-ting up a nuclear power plant arevery high, not to talk of thecosts of the waste disposal,making nuclear power signifi-cantly more expensive

Nuclear energy is not only ahigh-risk technology in terms ofsafety, but also with respect tofinancial investment. It does notstand a chance in a market econ-omy without state subsidies. Thecosts for decommissioning anuclear power plant are veryhigh and the costs of isolatingradioactive byproducts/wastesfrom the biosphere and safe-guarding them for hundreds ofthousands of years cannot evenbe estimated.

Is Nuclear Power Clean andSafe?

Throughout the entirenuclear fuel cycle from miningof uranium ore to spent fuel dis-posal, one has to worry aboutthe hazards due to radiation.The miners, people living closeto the mines, personnel and sci-entists handling radioactivematerial, workers in nuclearpower plants and people livingclose to these plants are allexposed to serious levels of radi-ation, having serious and longlasting adverse health hazardslike tumours, cancer, congenitaldeformities etc. In addition

other toxic materials are alsoreleased into the biosphere atdifferent stages of the nuclearfuel cycle. (For more informa-tion, please visithttp://www.ratical.org/radia-tion/ World Uranium Hearing /GordonEdwards.html.)

From a personal point, Imyself have seen what thenuclear power plant atKalpakkam has done to theenvironment around that areaand to the people.

Many of the people in vil-lages nearby Kalpakkam likeMeyurkkuppam are affected bydifferent types of cancer. Thefish and aqua life in the sea alongthe Kalpakkam coast are alsoaffected by radioactivity. Alsoscientists have found after the26/12 Tsunami that radiationsfrom Kalpakkam have reachedfar south.

Now if we have plants com-ing in Koodankulam, the wester-ly winds will affect whole ofKerala. The entire Kerala coastwill be radioactive, with naturalradioactivity from black sandtogether with human maderadioactivity coming from theplants. It will be the death knellof the Kerala tourism industry.People living from Kanyakumarito Calicut will all be affected byradioactivity. It is not at all safeto have nuclear power plants.

Who is Accountable forHazardous RadioactiveWastes?The more important issues likethe problems of radiation fromthe wastes generated by miningand processing of uranium ore,to storage of nuclear wastes arebeing overlooked. As the Indian

uranium ore is of very low grade(concentration of around0.067% or even lower), onlything that will be left after 30years of operation of miningand processing a huge amountof radioactive wastes, spread allover the surrounding areas, con-taminating air, soil, undergroundand surface waters.

Who is accountable for allthese radioactive wastes, whichwill, in all probality, be left unat-tended after the closure of themines and processing plants, andwill continue to affect futuregenerations for hundreds ofthousands of years, which defyhuman imagination? But politi-cal expediency makes even hon-est people with integrity over-look the stark and naked truths.The electricity is but the fleetingbyproduct of nuclear energy.The actual product is foreverdeadly radioactive wastes.

Does Nuclear EnergyCombat Climate Change?Since different stages of nuclearfuel cycle produce large amountsof radioactive and other toxicwastes, it is certainly not envi-ronmentally clean and safesource of energy, as is beingclaimed by some agencies. Thenuclear energy can replace onlyto some extent the electricityproducing technologies respon-sible for carbon emissions.However, carbon emissionsfrom mining, milling, trans-portation and constructionsassociated with nuclear power,would still continue to takeplace. The idea that nuclearenergy will help combat globalwarming is illusory, because forthat to happen, a new nuclear

39

power plant must come up everyweek.

Extensive studies haveshown that each dollar investedin using energy more efficientlyby the consumers, reduces near-ly six times more CO2, than adollar invested in nuclear power.The nuclear power is neither theanswer to modern energy prob-lems nor a panacea for climatechange challenges and it doesn'tadd up economically, environ-mentally or socially.

Must Energy ConsumptionRise in Lockstep withEconomic Growth?The experiences of other coun-tries show that it is not necessar-ily so. It is nothing but suicidaltrying to target for higher percapita consumption of energy,instead of trying to improveefficiency and cutting down theenergy intensity, through attitu-dinal and policy changes andtechnological innovations.

What are the ViableAlternatives for SustainableEnergy Security?There is a huge potential ofenergy savings, which is estimat-ed to be about 25 % of the ener-gy consumption in India,through energy efficiency meas-

ures such as, making use of nat-ural light and ventilation inbuildings during day time, use ofCFLs, LEDs for lighting, switch-ing over to "Star Rated" prod-ucts and energy efficient tech-nologies, which in combinationof renewable sources of energy,could be much cheaper and def-initely much cleaner and saferthan building new nuclear powerplants.

It would be more prudent toinvest, just as much money andimagination in solar energy, ashas hitherto been put intonuclear power. Therefore reori-enting the planning and budgetpriorities, for vibrant R&D toexplore and develop the poten-tials of solar, wind and otherrenewable and non-conventionalenergy sources. It makes moresense than opting for FBR andThorium based cycle.

Conclusion"We were promised unlimited

energy. The promise was a delu-sion. What was given to us is arestriction of our freedom asinhabitants of this planet: Wecan no longer drink just anywater and we may no longer stepout onto any ground. For manypeople it has become dangerousto breathe deeply. There is no

such thing as the so-calledpeaceful use of nuclear energy.We owe it to ourselves and tothose who will come after us toput an end to the use of nucleartechnologies forever. May TheWorld Uranium Hearing inSalzburg contribute to thatend"--Claus Biegert, Fed.Rep. ofGermany, Journalist .

The above are a fewthoughts and opinions compiledfrom various sources and areopen for debate and correction,with a view to find solution forthe sustainable Energy Securityof our country. The Humanbeings are at the centre of con-cerns for sustainable develop-ment and the human beings areentitled to a healthy and produc-tive life.

Acknowledgement: WorldInformation Service on EnergyPublication, Nuclear Monitor,

Integrated Energy PolicyReport of the ExpertCommittee, PlanningCommission , GOI , etc.

* Ullash Kumar.R.K. is a freelancejournalist, wildlifer and naturalist.

IV. Support International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA):

Time to Ban the Bomb and the Reactor

Alice Slater*

WITH the world's hopesnewly raised by inspiringstatements from promi-

nent leaders urging the elimina-tion of nuclear weapons, includ-

ing pledges by Presidents Obamaand Medvedev, to work for "anuclear free world", the recentestablishment of theInternational Renewable Energy

Agency (IRENA) could actuallyenable us to realistically fulfill theNon-Proliferation Treaty's mis-sion for nuclear disarmament. InJanuary, Germany, together with

40

Denmark and Spain, launchedIRENA in Bonn with 75 nationswho signed its founding statute1.Since IRENA is the Greek wordfor peace, this auspicious initiativeis particularly well-named as theAgency is designed to spread thefruits of clean, safe sustainableenergy, enabling the planet toavoid nuclear proliferation andcatastrophic climate change andassist developing countries toaccess the abundant free energyresources provided by ourMother Earth.

IRENA precludes reliance onfossil, nuclear and inefficient tra-ditional biomass energy. With anInternational Atomic EnergyAgency, promoting dangerousand toxic nuclear power technolo-gy, and an International EnergyAgency, founded during the1970s oil crisis to manage the fos-sil fuel supply, IRENA's launchcould not have been timelier asthe world wrestles with the twincrises of nuclear proliferation andglobal warming. We urge everynation to join IRENA by signingits founding statute and to foregoor phase out deadly nuclear tech-nology, whether for war or forpeace.

Throughout the years of thisNPT process, we NGOs havewarned states parties that thespread of nuclear energy spellsdisaster for efforts to control theproliferation of nuclear weaponsor to mitigate the impacts of cli-mate change, threatening the veryfuture of humanity's existence.Distinguished physicians at thesemeetings have described for youthe awful physical effects of car-cinogenic pollution from nuclearpower with increased cancer,leukemia, and birth defects in

every community where nuclearreactors spew their lethal poisonsinto the air, water and soil2. Sincewe last spoke to you, newGerman studies show a 60%increase in solid cancers and a117% increase in leukemia amongyoung children living nearGerman nuclear facilities between1980 and 2003.3

Indigenous leaders fromaround the planet have stood hereand told you about the awful hor-rors wreaked on their communi-ties from uranium mining. Wereminded you of the creationstory of the Rainbow Serpent,asleep in the earth, guarding overthose elemental powers which lieoutside of humankind's controland how any attempt to seizethose underworld elements willdisturb the sleep of the serpent,provoking its vengeance: a terri-ble deluge of destruction anddeath. 4 At the World UraniumHearing, the world was warnedthat:

The Rainbow Serpent has beenwakened. Men turned into shadows,cancer, women giving birth to jellyfishbabies, leukemia - since the bombing ofHiroshima and Nagasaki in August1945, since the Bravo test in the BikiniIslands, and since the Chernobyl catas-trophe in April of 1986, we know thatthe Rainbow Serpent doesn't differenti-ate between uranium's military andpeaceful uses. Death is everywhere ittouches. But what we perhaps don't real-ize is that the destructive properties ofuranium are unleashed the moment it'smined from the ground. 5

We have told you there is noknown solution to the storage ofnuclear waste which lasts for hun-dreds of thousands of years,spewing its silent poisons into ourair, earth and soil, injuring not

only the living, but unborn gener-ations to come-our very geneticheritage. The United States, in2009,6 cancelled 30 year-old plansto bury nuclear waste at YuccaMountain Nevada because it can-not safely contain the long-livedpoisons that the nuclear industrylobbied to bury there for eons.After more than 60 years of igno-rantly and mindlessly amassinghuge quantities of toxic radioac-tive poisons, heedless of the con-sequences to earth's biosphere,yet another Commission is to beappointed to yet again "study theissue". We don't have a clue!Rational behavior would demandwe should stop making any morenuclear waste until, and if ever,we can figure it out!!

In France, held up as theexemplar of a country enjoyingthe "benefits" of nuclear power,its nationally owned Areva, thelargest nuclear corporation in theworld, is plunged into debt. Itsreprocessing center at La Haguehas produced massive dischargesof radiation into the EnglishChannel and has over nine thou-sand containers of radioactivewastes with no safe place to go.In Japan, the costs from theearthquake last year that crippledseven reactors at Kashwazaki arestill rising.7 In the UK, theSellafield nuclear recycling plant ismired in debt and costly break-downs. 8

We have explained to youhow the nuclear industry pro-motes false information aboutnuclear power's ability to mitigatethe effects of catastrophic climatedisasters. Millions of dollars arespent in marketing campaigns toconvince the public that nuclearpower will prevent global warm-

41

ing.9 But the evidence is incontro-vertible that nuclear power is theslowest and costliest way toreduce CO2 emissions.Financing nuclear power divertsscarce resources from invest-ments in renewable energy andenergy efficiency. Enormoussums spent for nuclear powerwould worsen the effects of glob-al warming by buying less carbon-free energy per dollar, comparedto investing those sums in sun,wind or efficiency.10 Nor isnuclear power carbon free.11 Ituses fossil fuels for the mining,milling and processing of urani-um, as well as for reactor decom-missioning and waste dispositionand depends on a grid usuallypowered by coal. It is unreliable inextreme weather conditions andneeds back up power to preventmeltdown. In the summer of2004, France had to shut down anumber of reactors during anextreme heat wave.12

We have spoken to you of thefolly of lusting for mastery ofnuclear technology as a matter of"national pride". This is holdoverthinking from the 1960s whennuclear power developed inindustrialized nations. Many sci-entists in developing countrieswere trained in nuclear technolo-gy as part of the Atoms for Peaceprograms in the US, Russia andEurope during the late 1950s andin the 1960s.13 Nuclear powergrowth stalled in the industrial-ized countries by the late 1980s,especially after the tragedies ofThree Mile Island and Chernobyl,and as its economic burdensbecame clear. But by then the for-mer young scientists wereentrenched in running the indus-try and like their nuclear reactors

were now middle aged andunwilling to let go of their posi-tions of power.

The nuclear renaissance wasto be a passing on of the inheri-tance to the next generation butreal world constraints are makingthis generation of new reactorseven more problematic than thelast and the nuclear baton is notlikely to pass out of the existing"club". The enormous cost andsafety problems are still here. Inthe industrialized nations, thenuclear industry has great difficul-ty in recruiting nuclear engi-neers.14 Due to global shortages innuclear reactor components it'snot possible for the world nuclearindustry to build more that 10reactors a year at most for thenext decade.15 Because all of theoperating reactors will have to beretired in that time, 1070 reactorswould have to be built in 42 years,or about 25 reactors per year, inorder for nuclear technology tolower carbon emissions of evenone billion tons per year.

In a "wedge" model whichassumes that nuclear power couldreplace a portion of the energyused by coal fired plants, theeffort expended would be insuffi-cient to have even the smallestimpact on climate change.16 Andbecause the limited supply ofproduction capacity to producenew reactors creates a seller'smarket, the industry is muchmore likely to sell to countrieswith nuclear experience. This isdue to the risks associated withinordinately long lead times fornew construction, security andliability issues, and already exist-ing infrastructure. Thus develop-ing countries or countries with nonuclear industry will probably be

rebuffed and are well advised toput their energy investments intomuch more reliable renewablesources

Nevertheless, proposals to tryto control civilian nuclear fuelproduction have sparked newinterest in acquiring nuclear tech-nology by countries that neverwanted such technology before.A top-down, hierarchical, central-ly controlled nuclear apartheidfuel cycle is being planned, creat-ing a whole new class of nuclear"have nots" who can't be trustednot to turn their "peaceful"nuclear reactors into bomb facto-ries. It's just so 20th century! Thesediscriminatory proposals aredoomed to fail. With the growingchorus of promising new calls fora nuclear free world, there is noneed for any nation to have a vir-tual bomb in the basement. Farbetter to leap frog over this anti-quated, poisonous 20th centurytechnology and expend yourfinancial and intellectual treasureon clean, safe renewable energy,averting the twin catastrophes ofnuclear proliferation and radicalclimate change, while adding yournation's voice to the growingnumbers of world leadersdemanding that negotiations fornuclear weapons abolition moveforward.

Critical energy investmentchoices must be made now if weare to prevent the looming cli-mate calamity. Every thirty min-utes, enough of the sun's energyreaches the earth's surface tomeet global energy demand foran entire year. Wind has thepotential to satisfy the world'selectricity needs 40 times overand could meet all global energydemand five times over. The

42

geothermal energy stored in thetop six miles of the earth's crustcontains an estimated 50,000times the energy of the world'sknown oil and gas resources.Global wave power, tidal andriver power are vast untappedstores of clean energy.17 IRENAis dedicated to supporting nationsto develop and share the researchand technology that will enable usto harness that abundant, freeenergy to secure the future of ourplanet.

While the NPT guarantees toStates which agree to abide by itsterms an inalienable right to so-called peaceful nuclear technolo-gy, it is highly questionablewhether such a right can ever beappropriately conferred on aState. Inalienable rights are distin-guished from legal rights estab-lished by a State as moral or natu-ral rights, inherent in the veryessence of an individual. Theconcept first appeared in Islamiclaw and jurisprudence whichdenied a ruler "the right to takeaway from his subjects certainrights which inhere in his or herperson as a human being" and"become rights by reason of thefact that they are given to a sub-ject by a law and from a sourcewhich no ruler can question oralter". John Locke, the enlight-enment philosopher who coinedthe phrase "inalienable rights",was thought to be influenced inhis thinking by his exposure toArabic law.18

During the Age ofEnlightenment natural law theorychallenged the divine right ofkings. The United States'Declaration of Independencespoke of "self-evident truth" that

all men are "endowed by theirCreator with certain unalienablerights …to life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness." Wheredoes "peaceful nuclear technolo-gy" fit in this picture?!? Just as thesigning of the ComprehensiveTest Ban abrogated the right topeaceful nuclear explosions inArticle V of the NPT, we urgeyou to adopt a protocol to theNPT mandating participation inthe newly launched InternationalRenewable Energy Agency(IRENA) which would supersedethe Article IV right to "peaceful"nuclear technology.

Civil Society's Model NuclearWeapons Convention, now anofficial UN document, includesan Optional Protocol ConcerningEnergy Assistance which wouldphase out nuclear power and pro-vide funding and assist nations toshift to non-nuclear sustainableenergy sources.19 Universal enroll-ment in IRENA, coupled with amoratorium on new reactors andfuel production, while phasingout nuclear power by relying onsafe, renewable energy, mustbecome an integral part of thegood faith negotiations requiredto eliminate nuclear weapons. Weurge all nations to enroll and par-ticipate with IRENA. SinceIRENA was launched in Januarywith 75 countries, three newcountries, Belarus, India andGuinea have signed its Statute.20

NGOs will campaign for 100%universal participation in IRENAby the 2010 Review Conference.If your country has not yetjoined, please urge your leaders todo so. It's time to give peace achance!

(Based on the speech delivered atNPT PrepCom as part of NGO pre-

sentations to the delegates UnitedNations, NY, May 5, 2009.)

* Alice Slater is the New YorkDirector of the Nuclear Age Peace

Foundation and a founder ofAbolition 2000.

Notes:1. www.irena.org 2. See generally, "Reasonable

Doubt, New Scientist, apr. 26,2008, p.18

3. Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity ofNuclear Power Plants,International Journal of Cancer,vol.122, p.721; European Journalof Cancer, vol.44.p.275

4. http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/minfabmi.html

5. http://www.ratical.org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/

6. France's nuke power poster childhas a money melt-down, HarveyWasserman, Free Press, March19, 2009,http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2009/1732

7. ibid 8. A One Billion Pound Nuclear White

Elephant, Michael Savage,http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green- l iv ing/a-1631bn-nuclear-white-elephant-1664427.ht

9. Moore Spin: Or, How ReportersLearned to Stop Worrying andLove Nuclear Front Groupshttp://www.prwatch.org/node/5833

10. Nuclear Power: Climate Fix orFolly?, Amory Lovins, ImranSheikh, Alex Markovich,http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E0901_NuclPwrClimFixFolly1i09.pdf

11. Nuclear Power: The EnergyBalance, John Willem Storm vanLeuwen, 2008 http://www.storm-smith.nl/

12. European Heat Wave ShowsLimits of Nuclear Energy, JulioGodoy, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0728-06.htm

13. For 50 Years, 'Atoms for Peace'has Spawned Nuclear Fears ,James Sterngold

43

14. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1209-08.htm http://www.ne.doe.gov/neac/neacPDFs/finalblue.pdf

15. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22748&prog=zgp&proj=znpp , chap.3, p. 85

16. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/3-12-08_squassoni_testi-

mony1.pdf 17. See generally, A Sustainable

Energy Future is Possible Now,http://www.abolition2000.org/a2000-files/sustainable-now.pdf , 2006

18. Judge Weeramantry, ChristopherG (1997) Justice Without Frontiers,Brill Publishers, pp.8, 132, 134,139-40.

19. http://www.un.org/ga/search/

view_doc.asp?symbol=A%2F62%2F650&Submit=Search&Lang=E , p. 72

20. http://www.irena.org/downloads/Founconf/Signatory_States_20090126.pdf

V. Stories of Grassroots Struggle from Andhra:

Campaign against Uranium Projects in Nalgonda

Saraswati Kavula*

IT has been nearly six yearssince the Uranium Corporationof India Limited (UCIL) pro-

posed uranium mining and pro-cessing projects in Nalgonda dis-trict. In July 2003, an advertise-ment in The Hindu brought thisissue to the attention of Dr. K.Satyalakshmi, who had just awhile before seen the film,"Buddha Weeps in Jadugoda",about the impacts of uraniummining in Jadugoda, Jharkhand.The advertisement was about theEnvironmental Public Hearingabout proposed uranium miningand processing projects inNalgonda, to be held on August19, 2003, seeking public opinionregarding the proposed projects.A quick meeting held inThinksoft office, convened byCapt.J.Rama Rao brought togeth-er many of us, who were untilthen strangers to each other, butlater on became co-activists con-tinuing until date. During thatmeeting after much explanationabout the impacts of uraniummining by Dr. K Babu Rao fol-lowed by brainstorming forstrategies, we decided to cam-paign on this issue and formed

the Movement Against UraniumProjects(MAUP), a conglomerateof more than 20 organizations,NGOs and individuals. Till date,it has remained a platform opento everyone who wished to asso-ciate with the issue.

The first step was to createawareness and within a week,many printed handouts were pre-pared to educate the public aboutthe impending dangers of theproject which was to come withinone kilometre distance of theNagarjunasagar Reservoir. Whilewe had made many handouts, thefilm "Buddha Weeps inJadugoda" played a major role.Within the next one week, thefilm was dubbed into Telugu andwe then took it to the villageswhich fell within the vicinity ofthe proposed project sites.Needless to say, there was scepti-cism, but also a lot of outcryfrom the public, especiallywomen. The task of winningpublic opinion was not easy. Insome villages where the localleaders were bribed, people'sopinion was influenced against us.Especially since UCIL had takensome of the local leaders to

Jadugoda, on a conducted tour tosee the development - like roads,school, the hospital, big officesetc without allowing them anyinteraction with the affected vil-lagers. UCIL also distributedpamphlets (anonymously) sayingthat we were all foreign fundedagents who did not wish India to"develop". Naturally people gotsuspicious.

However, after much cam-paigning like going to various vil-lages, colleges and schools, inNalgonda and Hyderabad, therewas a large turn out at the publichearings. It was the only instancethat on the same day, for the samecause, two public hearings had tobe held. UCIL had decided tohold the public hearing inPeddagattu. But the village wasvery much inaccessible and alsothe villagers were hostile towardsthose who were opposing theproject, since their sarpanch andother leaders who controlled thepeople's opinion were bribed.However, Rajitha, a lawyer fromNalgonda and member ofMAUP, filed a petition in theHigh Court saying that this partic-ular site was inaccessible and

44

since the project was to affect theentire district, the public hearinghad to be held at the MandalHeadquarters, Pedda AdiserlaPally. The UCIL said since theyhad already made arrangements atPeddagattu they would not beable to shift the venue, to whichthe Court gave a directive that ifthey prefer to hold the Publichearing at Peddagattu, it is up tothem, but they must hold also apublic hearing at PA Pally. It wasthus, that on the 19th August,2003, at 10.30 am there was apublic hearing at Peddagattu vil-lage and later in the afternoonone more public hearing was heldat PA Pally. At Peddagattu publichearing by the time we reachedaround 10.30 am, a fight brokeout and the villagers ofLambapur who were opposed tothe project, (which is anothermine site) were beaten up by thepeople of Peddagattu, and theCollector and the administrationbehaved like inactive onlookers.As expected, none of us, whowere opposed to the project, wereallowed to speak by the Collector.It was the UCIL's show all theway. Even senior scientists likeSurendra Gadekar were notallowed to speak. But at thePublic hearing in PA Pally, the sit-uation was totally reversed. Alarge group of people, many ofthem students and villagersturned up from all over Nalgondadistrict. In addition to the vil-lagers of Lambapur, a lot ofmedia from the city, environmen-tal activists from across the coun-try, senior journalists like PrafulBidwai also attended to voicetheir opinions. Thus, the UCILcould not play its games in PAPally and there was a thundering

opposition from the public.Since the processing plant at

Dugyal and Mallapur was close tothe Akkkampally BalancingReservoir which supplied waterfrom Nagarjunasagar to the twincities and many hundred villagesalong the route, the HyderabadMetropolitan Water Supply Boardalso raised its objections to theproject. Thus, in 2005, the gov-ernment proposed to shift theprocessing plant to SeripallyVillage in Devarakonda Mandalof Nalgonda District, saying thatthe processing plant nearAkkampally Balancing Reservoir(AKBR) will affect the waterreservoir. But they allowed themining at Peddagattu andLambapur, where the mine siteswere just 1-2 kms away fromNagarjunasagar Reservoir sayingthat since mining is site specificthey cannot shift the venue!

This time the villagers ofSeripally, told UCIL that they willnot even allow them to hold thePublic Hearing. Thus, UCIL hadto hold its public hearing in anopen land outside the village.Once again, there was an over-whelming opposition at the pub-lic hearing. Women from theLambada community walked allthe way to the Public Hearing car-rying placards saying, "We don'twant Uranium Projects". Out ofthe 60 people who spoke at thepublic hearing 57 opposed theprojects.

After the public hearing,however, the government gavepermission to the projects andMAUP had filed a petition withthe National EnvironmentalAppellate Authority (NEAA).The NEAA after sitting on theissue for two years rejected our

plea in February 2009. AgainMAUP filed a writ petition inDelhi High Court, challenging theorder of NEAA and the outcomeis awaited. As of now, there is noactivity with regards to this proj-ect. UCIL is trying to continue itsexploration activities, but the vil-lagers of Peddagattu andLambapur especially women, aresending them packing. One verypositive outcome of this cam-paign was that the local villagerslike the ones in Peddagattu whowere opposed to us in the begin-ning, realized that we do havetheir welfare in mind, and today,keep a regular contact with us,updating us about UCIL's activi-ties.

And local people likeVenepally Panduranga Rao who isan ex-sarpanch of Allagadapa vil-lage helped in keeping the pres-sure on UCIL, by organizing afive day padayatra in January2006. Many people came from allover India and some studentactivists from abroad too partici-pated in this padayatra. ThePadayatra which started with afew dozens of us, continued over110 kms, culminating in largepublic meetings all along theroute and forced all political par-ties including the local Congressleaders to join in and oppose theprojects. Though Dr. YSRajasekhar Reddy, who hadopposed the projects while hewas in opposition, did a U-turnand now claimed that uraniummining was harmless and goodfor the development of the state,resulting in the projects getting acakewalk approval in KadapaDistrict, where people were notallowed to voice their opinion.The projects in Kadapa started in

45

November 2007, since the localpeople could not muster enoughcourage to stand up against anautocratic leader like Dr. Y.S.Reddy.

However, so far, the peopleof Nalgonda have been able toprevent UCIL from setting footin the district. The media, espe-cially the vernacular print mediatook up the issue with great zealand made the issue one of themost talked about issues in thestate. And activists of the MAUPlike Sajaya, Chenna Basavaiah,Ambika, P. Kishan Rao kept theissue alive conducting regularpublic awareness activities inother districts like Khammam,Krishna, Guntur districts, which

are dependent on the water fromNagarjunasagar. The MAUP withhelp from the Confederation ofVoluntary Associations (COVA)hosted the annual CNDP meet-ing at Osmania University,Hyderabad in 2006. Activists ofthe Jharkhandi OrganisationAgainst Radiation (JOAR) andMagsaysay Award winnerSandeep Pandey visited the vil-lages in 2007 and pledged theirsupport for the cause. Anotheryatra focusing on the environ-mental issues of Telengana wasconducted by V. Pandu RangaRao, in July2008, which onceagain brought the issue into focus.A visit by mining affected womenfrom across Asia to Seripally vil-

lage in March 2009, organized bythe MMP (Mines, Minerals andPeoples), helped in the local vil-lagers understanding the work-ings of the Mining companiesacross the globe. As of now, theUCIL is held at bay due to thepeople's pressure. And the peopleof Nalgonda district also have thedistinction of having fought off aNuclear Power Plant in 1988.

* Saraswati Kavula is a filmmaker,environmentalist and an activist of theMovement Against Uranium Projects

(MAUP), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.(MAUP is a constituent organisation

of the CNDP.)

VI. Proposed Nuclear Power Plant at Haripur:

Chronology of Resistance

Santanu Chacraverti*

BackgroundFor some time there had beentalk of setting up nuclear reac-tors in West Bengal.

It was clear by July 2006 thatthe West Bengal governmentwas supporting the NuclearPower Corporation of IndiaLimited (NPCIL) in its plans toset up a cluster of nuclear powerinstallations in West Bengal. Itbecame clear by September 2006that the proposed site wasMankaraiput, a coastal village inthe Haripur Mauza, Contai sub-division, in Purba MedinipurDistrict and was not more than 5Kms from Junput, the oldestand most renowned marine fishlanding site of West Bengal. Itemerged that an NPCIL expertteam had already visited and sur-

veyed Mankaraiput-Haripur ear-lier that year under cover ofundertaking routine geologicaltesting and had selectedMankaraiput as the site for set-ting up nuclear reactors.

As per media reports inNovember 2006, six nuclearinstallations of about 1500 MWeach had been planned - involv-ing a projected expenditure ofRs. 60,000 crores. It was saidthat the project would start offwith 2 reactors and four otherswould come up in phases. It wasclear that this nuclear endeavourwould involve capturing of aconsiderable amount of verythickly populated coastal land, inthe villages Mankaraiput,Haripur, Baguran Jalpai andother villages in the vicinity,

leading to eviction of some10,000 local fishers, farmers andartisans etc. and exposing aninnumerable number of resi-dents to the hazards of low levelradiation and possible nuclearaccident.

The decision was widely per-ceived as a disaster, and not onlyby the people facing the threatof eviction. The Haripur-Junputarea is economically importanton two counts. It is an exceed-ingly important fishing site,where thousands of fishersengage in coastal fishing. Also,the soil is astonishingly fertileand produces a large array ofvegetables. Moreover, the Contaisubdivision is densely populatedand any nuclear accident wasbound to severely endanger the

46

life and health of hundreds ofthousands of people.

The Calendar of resistance � From 7-12 November 2006

the National Fishworkers'Forum had organised agita-tions all throughout theIndian coast on National andlocal issues. In Haripur andthe adjoining fish landingsites starting fromDadanpatrabar and includingthe fish landing sites / vil-lages at Saula, Baguran Jalpai,Majilapur, Aladarput, Junputetc. - the agitation concen-trated on the issue of pro-posed Nuclear power plant.

� As a part of the above-men-tioned agitation, thousandsof fishworkers marchedthrough Contai and blockad-ed all major crossings result-ing in stoppage of all trafficfor two hours.

� When a high power team ofexperts from NPCIL arrivedon 17th November 2006,accompanied by battalionsof armed police, the localresidents blockaded the roadand prevented them fromentering the area.

� On18 November 2006 - i.e.the next day - the teamattempted to enter Haripuragain. Thousands of men,women and children fromvillages around the proposedsite blockaded all entrypoints and the Central team,along with the police, onceagain beat a retreat. It needsto be mentioned that notonly fishworkers but localpeasants and artisans alsojoined the resistance in large

numbers. The NPCIL highpower team was compelledto retire and theGovernment beat a retreatfor the moment. The ChiefMinister however declaredhis resolve to carry on theproject, and in this he wasseconded by the NPCILchairman.

� On 21 November, 2006,Vishwa Matsyajibi Dibas(World Fishworkers Day),about ten thousand fish-workers marched throughContai to the city Town Hallto attend the Peoples'Convention against the pro-posed nuclear power plant.

� On 28 November there wasa mammoth rally of aboutfifteen thousand people atthe Junput Bus Stand. Therally and meeting wereattended by a number oflocal organisations and anti-nuclear activists fromKolkata and elsewhere. Itwas in this meeting thatHaripur Paramanu VidyutPrakalpa Pratirodh Andolan(Movement against NuclearPower Project at Haripur)was formed.

� 8 December - Padayatra(Procession) of some twentythousand people fromJunput to Contai.

� 17 December - AnotherPeople's Convention at TownHall where a large team ofcitizens from Kolkata, con-sisting of intellectuals andactivists, as well as the localMLA, participated.

� 19 December - the transportminister Subhas Chakrabortyand the local CPI(M) leader

from Tamluk, Mr. LakshmanSeth, arrive at the RecreationClub grounds to hold ameeting in favour of theNuclear Power Plant. Themeeting was attended by lessthan a thousand people but itfaced tremendous agitationfrom eight to ten thousandlocal residents, led by thelocal MLA.

� 28 December - MahaswetaDebi visited Haripur anddelivered an address againstthe proposed nuclear powerplant.

� 1 January, 2007 - MashalMichil (Torch Procession) often thousand people in theevening, led by the localMLA

� 5 January, 2007 - People'sConvention at MunicipalityGrounds Dr. Meher Engineer(Ex-Director, Bose Institute),Sujato Bhadra (APDR),Pradip Datta (Anti-NuclearActivist), Jaya Mitra (literat-teur) and other intellectualsand activists attended andspoke against Nuclear Power.

� 28 December 2006 to 5January 2007 - Book Stallwith Poster Exhibition byHaripur Paramanu VidyutPrakalpa Pratirodh Andolan(HPVPPA) at Contai BookFair.

� Paush Mela in January (atJunput) - Book Stall, DigitalFilm shows etc.

� 14 February 2007 - scientistsand anti-nuclear activistsfrom different parts of Indiavisit Kolkata to attend a day-long deliberation againstnuclear power. The delibera-tion ends with a resounding

47

declaration against the pro-posed nuclear plant atHaripur.

� The next day, on 15February 2006, a large teamof anti-nuclear activistsfrom different states go on avisit to Haripur. They reachContai and hold a meetingthere, which was attended bySisir Adhikary, the chairmanof the Contai municipality.Thereafter they go on toHaripur, where they addressa massive gathering on theHaripur beach. The meetingcontinued late into theevening and a large crowdremained till the end.

� 17 November - Haripur toJunput Torch Procession ledby the fishworkers' leadersRatna Majhi and LakshmiPaunda.

� 18 November - Candlelight

procession in Baguran Jalpailed by Enamul Hossain, fish-workers' leader from Junput,and Birndranath Shyamaland Rashid Ali, fishworkers'leaders from Baguran Jalpai.

� Throughout 2007, theHPVPPA continued itspreparations and vigil. Thelocality bubbled with eventsand activities. Discussions,debates, talks and videoshows were held all over thelocality, and the molecularprocesses of resistance con-tinued to gather momentum.

� However 2007 was also theyear of the Nandigramresistance and by 2008, par-ticularly after the resoundingleft defeat in the Panchayatelections of PurbaMedinipur, it appeared thatthe government no longerhad the gumption to take on

another hub of resistance.� Given the situation the peo-

ple of Haripur and adjoiningvillages gradually came tofeel that the nuclear plantwas no longer a near possi-bility. Therefore for the lastone year or so the HPVPPAhas seen little activity.

� However, the basic idea ofresistance is still in place andit appears that the movementwould once again gathermomentum if the authoritiesonce again decide to go for-ward with their nuclear plans.

* Santanu Chacraverti is a leadingactivist of Society for Direct

Initiative for Social and HealthAction (DISHA), Kolkata.

VII. Jadugoda Tribals Live under the Shadow of Nuclear Terror

Tarun Kanti Bose*

ON the basis of available

information today, around

7000 people work at the

Jadugoda mining complex.

Hundred percent of the con-

tract workers are tribal1. Ninety

five percent of them are under-

ground miners. In the top man-

agement or first grade posts of

UCIL no tribal people are

employed. A study conducted by

Anumukti, (Liberation from the

Atom) a journal started in 1987)

is the leading anti-nuclear jour-

nal in India, in its January 2004

issue (Volume 13, Number 1),

points out that as high as 55.3%

of the household in the villages

have at least one person in regu-

lar employment with the UCIL.

In addition Sadans, dalits and

other backward castes work in

the UCIL mills and mines.

Most of them work dressed

in cotton uniforms and leather

gloves are directly exposed to

high levels of radon gas, dust

and highest radiation. Once a

week, these workers carry their

uniforms home to be hand

washed by their wives and chil-

dren, exposing the entire family.

In the absence of any inde-

pendent study, anecdotal evi-

dence suggests that the

mineworkers are suffering an

epidemic of lung cancer, skin

disease and other chronic ail-

ments. Nobody knows how

many of have died.

Guria born crippled "No

standards have been met in the

tailing ponds construction and

no measures instituted to con-

trol the radon emissions from it.

As a result, they continually pose

a constant threat to Dungridih,

Chatijkocha, Telaitand,

Mecchua, Matigora and other

surrounding villages within 10-

15 Kms. Even Jamshedpur, just

48

20 kms is not free from it. It is

on the dried up tailing ponds

that Dr. Arjun Soren, who is the

first doctor from Jaduguda's

Santhal adivasi community, once

played football as a child

unaware of the dangers. Today,

he is fighting cancer undergoing

treatment in Mumbai for 'acute

myeloid leukaemia' His family

cannot afford a possible life sav-

ing bone-marrow transplant.

During his medical studies he

continued to visit Bhatin

throughout his medical studies,

assuring us and other Santhals

that he would return to work

with us," said Ghanshyam Biruli,

President, Jharkhandis'

Organisation Against Radiation

(JOAR) "While working in ura-

nium mines I handled the ore

during drilling operation. Mostly

I was in survey work. The geolo-

gist, whom I accompanied, used

to tell us at what depth the ura-

nium would be available after

inspection. All this affected my

health and I developed gastric

trouble, as we could never take

our meals in time. The doctors

kept on telling me that I had

Tuberculosis (TB). Then I con-

sulted a private doctor in

Jamshedpur who told me that I

did not have TB. But by then the

UCIL doctors had already

administered 90 injections and

gave some medicine, as a conse-

quence of which my eyes and

ears have been damaged. I got

my eyes treated by Dr. Mustafa

of Bistupur, I now feel as if

some insect is moving in my ear.

I still feel sick because of drink-

ing uranium-contaminated

water; I am taking medicines for

the last 15 years. They took my

blood, stool, urine and even

semen samples but the result

was never shown to me. They

kept telling me I have TB, "said

Mangal Majhi of Matigora vil-

lage Further, he said, "No one

told us that we became sick by

drinking uranium - contaminat-

ed water. We have witnessed of

it on plants and animal here.

There used to be 'kendu' fruits

grown in the vicinity of UCIL

and the tailing ponds, have

turned seedless. The fish in the

stream have developed all kinds

of diseases and started dying.

Cows and goats have also died.

The buffaloes have shortened

tail. Still, I am a sick person and

one-fourth of my body is use-

less, even after taking medicines

for 15 years." Radiation affected

Father and Son This is in contra-

vention of the Guidelines of the

International Committee of

Radiological Protection (ICRP).

M M Bhagat, former Working

President, UCIL Kamgar Union,

said, "Gloves and masks are not

provided to staff that pack the

yellow cakes in drums. Nothing

special is being done for urani-

um miners who are exposed to

grave dangers. In addition, their

families are exposed to slow poi-

soning on account of UCIL's

unsafe waste management prac-

tices."

Jadugoda uranium mining

has adversely affected more than

30,000 people in 15 villages

within the 5km radius of the

mining complex. These villages

are in the radiation zone.

Prominent among them are

Telaitand, Matigora, Mechhua,

Bhatin, Rohimbeda,

Chatijkocha, Surda, Narua,

Dumridih, Dungridih,

Sosoghutu, Sitadanga and

Bhusabani. People in these and

other villages suffer from physi-

cal deformities and a variety of

illnesses such as lung cancer,

skin disease and other chronic

ailments. However, UCIL claims

that it has not seen any effects of

radiation on its workforce;

notwithstanding the record of

death toll- 17 workers died in

1994, 14 in 1995, 19 in 1996 and

21 in 1997. Mangal Majhi from

village Matigora, just half kilo-

metre from Jadugoda mines

remembers how all this began-

"Officials from Delhi used to

come to Santhali villages to give

training and employment. We

adivasis were not interested.

Persistent in their effort, the

Englishmen continued to come

to our houses to take us to work

drop us back home in the

evening. Some of us went to

Rajasthan and other parts of the

country with the same company.

The non-tribals working with us

became big shots in the compa-

ny but our adivasis status

remained the same. After work-

ing in different parts of the

country I was sent back to

Jadugoda where I worked for

UCIL. In the beginning we did

not know what was being mined

and our Santhal community was

never informed about it. When

we joined the company, we had

to take an oath of secrecy". The

Majhi continued, "These mines

the government built forcibly

over our 'Jaher' (holy places). We

did not like this. We did not want

49

them to defile our sacred places.

We people were not considered

human being. There was no one

to protect us."

"At that point in time", the

Majhi said, "Jadugoda was a

grove of the castor oil tree. That

what the term means. It was

dense forest situated on the

indigenous Santhal and Ho trib-

al lands in the Singhbhum East

district of Jharkhand. Now it is

man-made hell." All of the ura-

nium for India's ten Pressurised

Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs)

comes from single uranium min-

ing and processing plant at

Jaduguda, started by Uranium

Corporation of India Limited

(UCIL) in 1967.

Tailing Pond It is fed on the

one hand by three underground

uranium mines at Jadugoda,

Narwapahar and Bhatin all with-

in a 5 km radius, and on the

other hand by the by-product

from three nearby copper mines

uranium recovery plants at

Rakha, Surda and Musabani.

This enterprise brings to the sur-

face, from a depth of 1600-2000

feet, a low-grade ore (0.06%),

not worth recovering in other

countries.

Outside Jharkhand UCIL

controls Domiasiat mill and

mine project (West Khasi Hills

district, Meghalaya); Lambapur-

Peddagattu project (Nalgonda

district, Andhra Pradesh). It

plans to start new open cast

mining at Turamdih and

Bhanduhurung, just 20 kms

from Jaduguda. Uranium ore is

brought to the Jaduguda mill in

open trucks along narrow roads

linking the mines from Bhatin

four kms and Narwapahar

twelve kms west of Jadugoda.

These trucks are sometimes

partly covered by tarpaulins and

occasionally carry workers

perched on top of the ore load.

These dusty roads run through

villages littered with loose rock

fallen from these overloaded

trucks. Seeing children and live-

stock picking through piles of

uranium ore2 is enough to give

the casual visitor a glimpse of

safety standards being observed.

This ore is crushed to a fine

powder in the Jadugoda mill and

is then chemically treated (an

acid leach process) to extract the

uranium. Jadugoda produces

around 200 tonnes of uranium

in the form of yellow cake (ura-

nium concentrate) a year. It has a

processing capacity of around

1000 tonnes of ore per day. By

rough calculation, this means

that UCIL is mining, crushing

and then dumping around

330,000 - 360,000 tonnes of

rock every year. The 'yellow

cake' manufactured at plant is

transported to the Nuclear Fuel

Complex (NFC) in Hyderabad,

where they used to fabricate fuel

rods.

Uranium is not the only

radioactive element found in the

ore. There are a dozen or so oth-

ers known as uranium decay

products; among them, thorium-

230, radium-226, and radon-222.

Each of these presents a unique

hazard to people and other liv-

ing creatures coming into con-

tact with them. These wastes are

radioactive for around 250,000

years; in human terms this might

as well be forever. In addition to

the radiological hazard, uranium

ores commonly contain varying

concentrations of zinc, lead,

manganese, cadmium and

arsenic. None of these other ele-

ments are removed during pro-

cessing; all remain in the tailings

along with residues of the

process chemicals used to

extract the uranium.

What is left are eighty five

percent other radioactive prod-

ucts. These are made into slurry

and pumped into 'tailing' ponds.

The waste, known as tailings, is

treated with lime to neutralise

the acidity, and then separated

into coarse and fine particles.

The coarse tailings, making up

about 50% of the volume of the

waste, are backfilled into the

mine cavities. The remaining

fine tailings are mixed with water

and pumped through a pipeline

over the rooftops of Jadugoda

village into the tailings dam,

their final resting place. There

are now three large tailing ponds

at Jadugoda, impounding tens of

millions of tonnes of radioac-

tive waste and covering more

than 100 acres. They are unlined

and uncovered; liquids, gases

and fine dust particles are rapid-

ly cycled into the environment.

During the dry season, ponds

run dry, the wind picks up the

loose tailings and blows them

around; in the monsoon rains,

the dams overflow into the river.

People have also used the

ponds to graze livestock and

play soccer. They regularly cross

them on their way from one

place to another. The ponds are

constructed on traditional routes

to the forest and beyond, con-

50

necting people with their rela-

tives. Tailings have been used for

landfill and construction materi-

als. The complex has gradually

encroached peoples agricultural

land and their living space. They

continue to live within 30 metres

of the tailings structures, and

without any source for liveli-

hood. Jadugoda is also 'India's

radioactive dump yard'. Xavier

Dias pointed out "Wastes from

the Nuclear Fuel Complex in

Hyderabad and the BARC Rare

Materials Plant in Mumbai,

Mysore, Gopalpur on sea, as

well as medical radio wastes

from an unknown number of

sources are being returned to

Jadugoda. This came to light

when local people began to find

syringes, bags and IV pipes from

hospital wastes buried in the tail-

ings3. It is now widely under-

stood that the company still

imports this waste, and is feed-

ing it through the mill, crushing

it before discharging it into the

ponds. It is likely that some of

these materials are gamma radia-

tion emitters, adding to the radi-

ation hazard suffered by every-

one in the area".

The first intervention was in

1979 when Indian Federation of

Trade Union (IFTU), a labour

wing of Communist Party of

India (Marxist Leninist) called

for a strike in Rakha Copper

Mines. In this strike, IFTU

demanded only 'radiation

allowances' for the workers

exposed to radioactive rays. No

political party or a trade union

raised the these issue con-

fronting the mining community

and those living in the vicinity of

the mining site, " said Shamit

Carr, now a researcher and

member, Bharatiya Shramik

Sabha. Earlier he worked with

IFTU.

At this point in time

Singhbhumi Ekta (Singhbhum's

Unity), a Trade Union engaged

in AJSU activities, developed a

special relation with IFTU.

Xavier Dias who at this point in

time member of AJSU-

Singhbhumi Ekta front got

involved with this labour strug-

gles in Jadugoda. According to

Xavier Dias "The 1979 strike,

was unsuccessful but it brought

the issue of radiation to the fore.

It inspired and partially politi-

cised several educated tribal

youth, who were until then

unconcerned with radiation and

its adverse impact on the adiva-

sis living in Jaduguda".

In 1980s All Jharkhand

Students Union (AJSU) led an

upsurge on the identity question.

Militant bandhs for two-three

days were staged by urban youth.

AJSU called for elections boy-

cott. However, its associate,

Jharkhand Peoples' Party jumped

into electoral politics. The result

was unrecoverable disaster.

Disenchanted, most of the front

ranking AJSU functionaries from

the Ghatshila and Potka blocks

in East Singhbhum district broke

away from the organization in

1989 and launched an independ-

ent struggle against displacement

and unemployment in Jadugoda.

They formed Jharkhand Adivasi

Berojgar Visthapit Sangh

(JABVS) or the Jharkhand Tribal

Unemployed Displaced

Committee.

"At that time we knew noth-

ing about radiation. We knew

there was radiation but we didn't

take it as a serious issue" recol-

lected Xavier. Over a period of

time Ghanshyam Biruli, now the

President of JOAR, points out

that 'people slowly started to

notice rashes, deformities on fel-

low beings, cows were being

born without tails, fish with

unknown skin diseases were

being discovered, small animals,

including mice, monkeys and

rabbits were disappearance from

the area, Kendu fruits had

become seedless… "In 1991

when the preparations for the

World Uranium Hearings had

started, we read literature on the

consequences of uranium min-

ing- we were shocked", recollect-

ed Xavier Dias. We decided to

set up an organization to take

this struggle forward. Xavier set

up the Jharkhandis Organisation

Against Radiation (JOAR) in

1991/92 to pressurise UCIL

management to reform its oper-

ations. This organisation worked

together with the All- Jharkhand

Students Union that had started

an organisation of displaced and

unemployed tribal people.

At the World Uranium

Hearing4, 400 delegates and

observers from across the world

participated. Xavier Dias repre-

sented JOAR at the hearing.

Along with him there were other

three delegates and an observer

from India. The deliberations

and interactive sessions in the

Hearing helped Xavier to under-

stand the politics behind the ura-

nium production. "In the World

Uranium Hearing, I was

51

astounded by the fact that eighty

percent of uranium in the world

was being dug out from indige-

nous lands. The indigenous peo-

ple are worst victims on the altar

of world's nuclear weapons

development programme. Not

only in India, even in Canada,

USA, Latin America, Australia

and in Africa. In India Jadugoda

and Domisiat in Meghalaya,

were tribal area, where rich

deposit of uranium was found",

said Xavier Dias Participation in

the World Uranium Hearing

made it clear, pointed out

Xavier, that the State by design

was smothering tribal identity.

This was genocide an integral

part of India's nuclear develop-

ment programme. The deploy-

ment of CRPF, CISF and other

paramilitary forces at Jadugoda

ensured secrecy keeping tribals

from knowing what happens in

the process of mining uranium

and transporting it to other

places Truck with uranium with-

out any cover In the absence of

any official initiative to find out

the health of the people living

around the mine, in 1993,

Bindrai Institute for Research

Study and Action (BIRSA) in

collaboration with JAVBS (now

JOAR) conducted a survey in

seven villages within 1km of the

mining site (specifically tailings

dams, described later). [BIRSA

was started in 1989 It was

planned as a research, training

and documentation centre by a

group of intellectuals and

activists connected with the var-

ious People's movements of

Jharkhand BIRSA set its goal to

nurture its own leadership from

amongst the Jharkhandi activists

and in the ten years of its histo-

ry is has achieved this to a good

extent.] Dr. Imrana Qadir of

Centre for Social Medicines,

Jawaharlal Nehru University

(JNU), New Delhi trained mid-

wives, who were also village level

health workers, for field investi-

gation. The survey was designed

to find out instances of still-

borns, deformed children and

other new aliments and explain

to the people the harmful effects

of radiation. It took two years to

complete the survey.

"The report revealed that

47% of women suffered disrup-

tions in their menstrual cycle,

18% said they had suffered mis-

carriages or given birth to still-

born babies in the last 5 years.

30% suffered fertility problem.

Nearly all women complained of

fatigue, weakness and depres-

sion. Further, the survey found a

high incidence of chronic skin

disease, cancers, TB, bone, brain

kidney damage, nervous system

disorders, congenital deformi-

ties, nausea, blood disorders and

other chronic diseases. Children

were the most affected-born

with skeletal distortions, partially

formed skulls, blood disorders

and a broad variety of physical

deformities. Most common is

missing eyes or toes, fused fin-

gers or limbs incapable of sup-

porting them. Brain damage

often compounds these physical

disabilities." In addition, the

researchers found that 30,000

people within 5 km of the min-

ing area were being exposed to

abnormally high levels of radia-

tion." said Ajitha George of

BIRSA, who was co-ordinating

the BIRSA/JOAR study.

These damages from low-

level radiation slowly degrade

the DNA material destroying

the inheritance upon which the

whole human race depends.

Once the genes have been dam-

aged there is no hope of repair.

It is impossible to gauge

how much radioactive material is

circulating within the environ-

ment and how it is being taken

into the food chain. The little

that is known is frightening.

For nine years after UCIL

served notice in 1985 to the vil-

lagers of Chatijkocha that their

land would be acquired for con-

struction of the third tailings

pond, nothing happened. Then

suddenly in 1994 the villagers

were directed to appear at the

UCIL offices to collect their

compensation for their land that

had been acquired. Crude con-

crete markers about the size and

shape of gravestones appeared

in the area where the new waste

dump was about to appear.

Most families were deeply

offended by the pitiful compen-

sation offered by UCIL and

refused to accept. Instead they

made a set of demands, which

were ignored. On January 27,

1996 UCIL, backed by district

police and paramilitary units,

entered the village and began the

process of bulldozing their

houses. Thirty houses were

destroyed, fields were flattened,

sacred 'sarnas' (groves of wor-

ship) and graveyards were lev-

elled out.

The demands were as fol-

lows:

52

1. Bringing radioactive wastes

into their area and dumping

them in their villages should

stop forthwith.

2. International norms and

standards for storing

radioactive waste that has

already been dumped should

be meticulously observed

3. All the villages around the

already existing tailings

ponds should be resettled at

a safe distance and complete

rehabilitation should be

undertaken.

4. All the families whose active

working members have

either died or been incapaci-

tated and the families which

have children with serious

physical and/or mental dis-

abilities should be adequate-

ly compensated and the

company should take the

responsibility for their treat-

ment.

5. The company should set up

a public dispensary manned

by medical personnel quali-

fied to treat radiation related

diseases, and its functioning

should be under the direc-

tion of the traditional tribal

leadership of the

Majhi/Pargana. In response,

within three days Santhal

people mobilised a large

number of people from

nearby villages in support of

the people of Chatijkocha.

Women lay down in front of

bulldozers; the local press

broadcast the action to

national and international

human rights groups. As a

result the demolition was

temporarily suspended. The

villagers demanded that they

be realistically compensated

for their lands and rehabili-

tated to a habitable area.

People approached the

Ranchi Bench of the Bihar High

Court in mid-1996 seeking to

stop UCIL from destroying their

villages. The court suggested the

villagers' dialogue with the min-

ing management. The negotia-

tions was fruitless, the tribal

people ended up walking out.

Work to construct tailings

dam was quietly recommenced

in February 1997. On 25th

February, tribal people blocked

the construction work. In

response, UCIL deployed police

and the arrests began.

Repressive measures were

adopted to silence the tribal peo-

ple. "In 1997, my brother Jairam

also raised his voice along with

other Santhals. He was brutally

beaten by the police with rifle

butts on the buttocks. There was

bleeding and since then he has

been suffering," said Dumka

Murmu, General Secretary,

JOAR Broader support from

surrounding villages and other

Jharkhandis struggling group

started pouring in. On March 9,

a Parganas5 of all the Santhal

Tribal people arrived in support

and UCIL were again forced

into negotiations. UCIL made

lot of promises, including

improved radiation monitoring,

realistic cash payments, employ-

ment for the displaced males

and improved healthcare for

radiation-affected people.

JOAR's movement forced

negotiations and achieved com-

pensation from the powerful

and secretive nuclear operation.

The movement swelled since

1997 and became known around

the country.

'The most mobile element in

the tailings is Radon-222, a

heavy radioactive gas with a half-

life of 3.8 days. (With a steady

10km per hour wind, the gas

could travel nearly 1000 km

before half has decayed.) This

gas presents a major threat to

mine workers and nearby resi-

dents alike; it emits alpha radia-

tion as it decays into radioactive

bismuth, polonium and lead.

Inhaling or ingesting radon (it is

water soluble) poses a unique

health hazard as the body

becomes exposed to the chemi-

cal properties of the various

decay products as well as their

radioactivity, according to the

paper titled ' Radiological pollu-

tion from uranium mines at

Jaduguda' submitted by Xavier

Dias at a 'Conference on Health

Environment' organised by

Centre for Science Environment

in New Delhi 6th-9th July 1998.

As part of protests against

the construction of the third

tailings dam, JOAR demanded

that the State of Bihar conduct

its own survey on the health

impacts of the mine. The envi-

ronment committee of the Bihar

Vidhan Parishad (Legislative

Council) spent two years on the

study, and filed its last report in

December 1998. A medical team

sampled water around the tail-

ings dams and examined 54 peo-

ple suspected of suffering from

radiation-related illness.

The report confirmed what

53

the people already knew; that

UCIL was dumping nuclear

waste from other sites into the

tailings dams, that uranium was

leaching into the river, and that

people were living too close to

the mine. The team expressed

concern at the fact that the tails

dams were unfenced, that waste

water was returning to the treat-

ment plant in open drains, and

that there were no warning signs

around the plant. But overall the

findings were ambivalent. KK

Beri, then UCIL Technical

Director, had written to the

deputy commissioner's office

informing him that the 54 peo-

ple identified by the medical

team were not suffering from

diseases caused by uranium

radioactivity, and they are dis-

missed in the final report: "As

regards the cause-effect relation-

ship of these diseases with

radioactivity, we can neither

establish nor exclude the same at

this stage." The committee rec-

ommended a complete health

survey to be undertaken. A med-

ical team dominated by doctors

from BARC and the UCIL chief

medical officer duly carried this

out. It found, perhaps not sur-

prisingly, that the diseases found

in Jadugoda were not related to

radiation, blaming instead poor

nutrition, malaria, alcoholism

and genetic abnormalities.

Contrary to these findings

"There is no radiation or any

related health problems in

Jadugoda and its surrounding

areas", says J.L Bhasin, former

chairperson and Managing

Director of UCIL. The 'no radi-

ation' argument, when pushed,

becomes 'no radiation beyond

permitted international limits''.

Mine management also denies

dumping nuclear waste at

Jadugoda, other than "a small

amount of raffinate cake" from

Hyderabad. It denies any health

effects from elevated levels of

radiation and insists it holds that

its workforce is healthy.

The environment committee

however made a recommenda-

tion that echoed one of the key

demands of JOAR: that people

be evacuated to a distance of 5

km from the mines and tailing

ponds. UCIL and the govern-

ment alike ignored this recom-

mendation, like much of the

bulk of the report.

This is the standard practice

for the nuclear industry world-

wide. The Indian nuclear indus-

try is able to hide behind an

oppressive 'Official Secrets Act'

and is not directly accountable

to the people for its actions. All

nuclear research including health

physics and health test of affect-

ed populations are hidden by

this Act.

All this workers graduallygot to know. This led them toprotest. On account of unrestand discontent among the work-force UCIL looked towards pri-vate labour companies to hirecontract labourers, who weredismissed as soon as theyshowed any signs of illness.Regular employees started towear radiation-measuringdevices inside the plant andunderground, but they are nevertold what doses are recorded,and if they fell sick they weretreated at the plant hospital.Their medical records were kept

a closely guarded secret.

JOAR continued to be busy

with court proceedings; building

up the campaign, labour unrest

and the movement became

stronger than ever. However,

Xavier Dias in an interview to

Scott Ludlam in November

1999, said, "From here I think,

UCIL is either going to sabotage

or break the movement by buy-

ing up the leadership, or have

some clandestine operation like

what normal governments do.

These are the only two options

available."

In 2002, JOAR membership

had touched 3000 but after that

it took a downward trend. It had

formed village committees

under the leadership Manjis

(headman). JOAR had also

roped in Haripada Pargana as

one of its front ranking mem-

bers. Since its inception JOAR

had collaborated with other

organisations such as BIRSA,

Anumukti etc. to undertake

health surveys, legal action,

awareness building programmes,

political lobbying and direct

action in defence of the tribals.

"JOAR's struggle had defi-

nitely inspired the movement at

Banduhurung6 against UCIL's

open cast mining. The UCIL

plans to start a uranium process-

ing and power plant at

Turamdih, close to

Banduhurung. JOAR and media,

especially national newspapers

and magazines played an exem-

plary role in making people

aware about uranium mines and

its radioactive effect. Rana S

Gautam, of the Times of India's

wrote series of stories on

54

Jadugoda. It had been successful

in making people aware about

radiation though at a quite slow-

er pace," said Shamit Carr.

Two years later the UCIL

succeeded in dividing the move-

ment. JOAR split on 24th

February 2004, when UCIL

organised a 'Jan Sunwayi' (Public

Hearing) at Banduhurung to

garner support of the people in

favour of open cast mining in

Banduhurung "JOAR supported

UCIL and BIRSA opposed

UCIL" said Shamit Carr. Prior

to this public hearing a leader of

JOAR went around the villages

telling the villagers that they

should support UCIL, which

would get them the jobs.

Paradoxically, JOAR is a major

partner in the MUAP

(Movement Against Uranium

Project) raising voice against

UCIL projects in Nalgonda

(Andhra Pradesh) and

Domiasiat (Meghalaya).

"Seventeen tribal organisa-tions have formed a co-ordina-tion committee to oppose urani-um open cast mining inBanduhurung. The co-ordina-tion committee had distanceditself from JOAR, as it had sup-ported Uranium Corporation ofIndia Limited (UCIL) to beginits operations in Banduhurung."Alleged, "Rich dividends werepaid by UCIL to GhanshyamBiruli, President, JOAR for total'sell out'. UCIL gave him moneyto get his house refurbished inJadugoda. UCIL also paid himmoney to get a pond dug nearbyhis house. The president is a fulltime activist. But where does heget money for leading a lavishlifestyle" said Surai Hansda7,

Chief Functionary, AdivasiMoolvasi Bhumi SurakshaSamiti (AMBSS) Surai Hansdadecided to launch AMBSS whenthey saw JOAR work in supportof open cast mining inBanduhurung. AMBSS upholdstribal exclusive rights to theirtraditional lands and theirresources. It emphasizes thatwhere the lands and resources ofthe tribals have been taken awayby UCIL without their free andinformed consent, it should pro-vide jobs. It objects to andprotests against UCIL not keep-ing its promise8. AMBSS has700 members. Most of them aremen; they plan to induct womenin their struggle. Surai thinks,"Women had been at the fore-front of the tribal struggles.Without their participation, it'squite difficult to organise themovement." The organisationgenerates its own resources.Whenever there are pro-grammes, people donate gener-ously. During their mobilisationdrive against globalisation, theysaw that youths wanted to dis-pose off the land but eldersoppose. They are not interestedin any reunion with JOAR. Theirpotential allies in the struggle arethe affected community, vil-lagers and BIRSA. BIRSA hassupported and assisted themovement through legal advice,arranging for documents, dis-semination of information andfinancial support. UCIL tried todivide this organisation, but invain. Sukumar Murmu,Chairperson, Talsa villageAssembly said, "GhanshyamBiruli is acting like a broker ofUCIL. Suresh Purti of villageBarahata paid Ghanshyam Biruli

Rs. 75,000 for getting him a job.But till date he has not got a joband Rs. 23,000 was returnedback to him. Manki Gunduwaraof Barahata village also paidRs.75, 000 and Dusrath Jojogave Ghanshyam Biruli Rs.50.000 for job in UCIL."

As UCIL is going on a faster

pace for operationalising open

cast mining in Banduhurung so

17- organisation co-ordination

committee is intensifying its

struggle. They are less depend-

ent on external facilitator. They

encourage participation and

transparency and make an effort

to generate their own resources.

Growing intensity and broader

base of the struggle in

Banduhurung, will force UCIL

to soften its stand. UCIL has

been assiduously trying to brand

the struggle as anti-national and

anti- development by roping in

JOAR but the people affected by

the project see it as a genuine

struggle and therefore take it

seriously. Some of the senior

functionaries of JOAR are silent

and slowly distancing from its

activities. Of all the mining in

Jharkhand nuclear mining at

Jadugoda is the most lethal.

It is difficult to say how this

conflict will unfold and what will

be its consequences for the peo-

ple. The problem is difficult-

should one accept the Nuclear

programme and then struggle

over implementation of appro-

priate employment policy and

safety measures or should the

struggle focus on questioning

nuclearisation as such?

On the one hand, India is

the first Asian country to devel-

55

op a nuclear programme. The

process of becoming nuclear

began before the devastation of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and

inspite of the chill of the Cold

War. As early as 1944, Dr Homi

J Bhabha played a decisive role

in Indian nuclear affairs. He

wrote to the government asking

for money to set up an institute

for studying the subject, so that

"when nuclear energy has been

successfully applied for power

production in, say a couple of

decades from now, India will not

have to look abroad for its

experts, but will find them ready

at hand". India's first pacifist

Prime Minister, Jawaharlal

Nehru wrote to his defence min-

ister shortly after independence

that not only did the "future

belong to those who produce

atomic energy", but "Defence

(was) intimately connected with

this."

In 1948, a year after inde-

pendence the Indian Atomic

Energy Commission (AEC) was

set up. It would work under the

direct control of the prime min-

ister. This was the beginning of

the Nuclear Industry. It began

with meagre resources. An early

geological survey of India had

revealed a vast thorium resource

but few uranium deposits. The

earliest resource estimate

amounted to only 15,000 tonnes.

For an independent nuclear pro-

gram to be 'sustainable' with this

meagre resource, an ambitious it

was decided that the first gener-

ation of reactors would be

Canadian-designed CANDU

reactors, which run on natural

(i.e. non-enriched) uranium and

use 'heavy' water as the modera-

tor. The plutonium thus generat-

ed would provide fuel for a sec-

ond generation of fast-breeder

reactors, which would provide

yet more plutonium to mix with

the abundant thorium resource

and theoretically supply free

energy forever.

In August 1954, six years

later the Department of Atomic

Energy (DAE) was set up. The

prime minister operates though

this Commission and the

Department. The AEC has

overall control of all activities

relating to commercial use of

nuclear energy. It formulates

policies for the DAE, prepares

its budget, and ensures the poli-

cies are implemented. It also has

the ultimate responsibility for

safety. For insuring this it works

through the AERB. [The

President of India constituted

the Atomic Energy Regulatory

Board (AERB) on November

15, 1983 by exercising the pow-

ers conferred by Section 27 of

the Atomic Energy Act, 1962

(33 of 1962) to carry out certain

regulatory and safety functions

under the Act. The regulatory

authority of AERB is derived

from the rules and notifications

promulgated under the Atomic

Energy Act, 1962 and the

Environmental (Protection) Act,

1986.]

The mission of the Board is

to ensure that the use of ionising

radiation and nuclear energy in

India does not cause undue risk

to health and the environment.

Currently, the Board consists of

a full-time Chairman, an ex-offi-

cio Member, three part-time

Members and a Secretary.

The Department of Atomic

Energy (DAE) was and has full

executive powers to implement

the policies of the AEC. It sup-

ports and regulates the activities

of two main research centres

and the other research institu-

tions; the Nuclear Power

Corporation; the heavy water

projects; and fuel-chain under-

takings.

The AERB, which is respon-

sible to the AEC, formulates

safety standards and regulations.

It approves the commissioning

of nuclear stations on the basis

of its own safety assessments

and on information provided by

the Safety Review Committee of

the DAE. The AERB, which in

an ideal world would perhaps be

an independent body reporting

directly to parliament, has no

power to truly regulate the

industry and reports to the AEC

behind closed doors. The DAE

maintains a monopoly on

research, suppressing heretical

views as efficiently as any

medieval inquisition.

Uranium mines in Jadugoda

are the foundation of the Indian

nuclear fuel chain. It is wholly

State monopoly. The DAE owns

UCIL and its operations are cov-

ered under Atomic Energy Act,

which makes accurate informa-

tion about the mine somewhat

tortuous to obtain. There is no

requirement for public participa-

tion at any stage of the process

of sighting, designing or build-

ing nuclear facilities. In an article

for the Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists (1999), T.S. Gopi

Rethinaraj writes: "The depart-

56ment [of atomic energy] has

happily exploited the ignorance

of India's judiciary and political

establishment on nuclear issues.

In the past, it has even used the

Atomic Energy Act to prevent

nuclear plant workers from

accessing their own health

records. While nuclear establish-

ments everywhere have been

notorious for suppressing infor-

mation, nowhere is there an

equivalent of India's Atomic

Energy Act in operation. Over

the years, in the comfort of

secrecy, India's nuclear establish-

ment has grown into a mono-

lithic and autocratic entity that

sets the nuclear agenda of the

country and yet remains virtual-

ly unaccountable for its actions."

On the other hand the strug-

gles in the Jharkhand have

protested against expropriation

of Natural Resources9 for over

three hundred years. The mod-

ern composition of Jharkhand

was developed in reaction

against British colonialism

despite the fact that conducive

integrated economic structure

based on geographic features,

backward agriculture and

forests, and integral cultural her-

itage, unique inter-tribal rela-

tions etc., were present for this.

Tensions were sparked off in the

society due to new polarisations

caused by the growing pressures

on land by the state at the time

of colonial subjugation and the

consequent transfer of the land

constantly into the hands of

usurers as well as due to other

external pressures. As a result,

revolts in this region took the

form of tradition and culture

developed under resistance. In

the initial period these revolts

were of religious and retrograde

form, which is a special feature

of peasant revolts. But progres-

sively the development of these

struggles took place in the form

of looking for a new system

against the colonial fetters,

zamindari and usury. The

Munda resistance from 1789 to

1820, the Kol revolt of 1830-31,

the Bhumij revolt of 1834, the

Santhal revolt of 1855-56, the

Sepoy Mutiny of 1856-57, the

upsurge under the leadership of

Birsa Munda during 1895-1901

etc., kept the entire region agitat-

ed with a series of revolts span-

ning over more than a century. If

the people faced the repression

together, they also enjoyed the

fruits of victory together. The

laws that were made under com-

pulsion were the achievements

of these struggles. The

Chotanagpur-Santhal Parganas

Tenants Act (1872, 1886, 1903,

1908) that put a check on land

sales in Chotanagpur and

Santhal Parganas etc., were

enacted under the pressure of

these struggles. The sponta-

neous struggles in Jharkhand

have laid the foundation for a

tradition of resistance.

In Conclusion IFTU, which

called for a strike in Rakha

Copper mines in 1979, demand-

ed only 'radiation allowances' for

the workers exposed to it. But

neither any political party nor

mass organisations raised the

issue of 'uranium radiation'

affecting the mining community

or those living in the vicinity of

the tailing ponds. However, radi-

ation is a serious issue which

cannot be a part of any social

organisation or project-driven

NGOs. It was a serious political

issue. Uranium, which had been

used for manufacturing had

killed thousands in Nagasaki and

Hiroshima. In Jaduguda it is

daily killing people those living

near the mines.

In 1989, when JOAR was

taking its roots, the organisa-

tions which came to forward to

take up the issue, followed prin-

ciples of democratic centralism.

The democratic centralism has

two parts - ideological central-

ism and organisational central-

ism. The ideological centralism

grows out of the struggle to

develop one process of think-

ing, uniformity of thinking, one-

ness in approach and singleness

of purpose. Organisational cen-

tralism is built up on the basis of

the ideological centralism, which

gives the real structural shape to

the principle of democratic cen-

tralism In the movement against

radiation in the post-1989 era,

there was convergence of politi-

cal movements such as AJSU,

trade union struggles like

Singhbhumi Ekta, traditional

Manji Pargana System, NGOs,

professionals like journalists,

academicians, legal practitioners,

scientists, film-makers etc. The

convergence took place at the

time when there was a paradigm

shift in the movement, as it start-

ed drifting away from the princi-

ples of democratic centralism.

However, in the struggle

there were networking among

different players, who cut out

their role. To take ahead the

movement, the activities were

research, lobbying, mobilisation,

discussion, strategy planning,

57

awareness building, information

dissemination, finance etc. The

support groups had convergence

of interests but had no unifor-

mity in approach. Majority of

those forming the support

group came from middle class

background whose desire was to

strengthen the movement but

had not declassed them. An

amateurish videographer turned

filmmaker whose documentary

had been successful in bringing

the 'radiation issue 'at the fore in

national and international arena.

Though he was politically aware

but had no ideological ground-

ing. Quite overenthusiastic, he

started interfering in the day-to-

day activities of JOAR. JOAR

leadership had pinned their

hopes on support group, for

resources and skills too. But it

was not quite competent enough

to tackle those who mobilised

resources and used their skills

for building the struggle.

Notes:

1. Socially, Jadugoda andnearby villages, which is insidethe radiation zone may be divid-ed into two broad swaths as thedominant being the Santhals, thelargest tribe in Jharkhand: · TheAustro-Asiatic tribes, especiallySanthal and Ho live in Jadugodaand nearby villages. Most ofthese tribals are peasants butsome of them work as miners inUCIL mills and plants. 95% ofunderground miners are tribals.In the top management or firstgrade posts of UCIL no tribalsare employed, while 100% ofthe contract workers are tribals.The major occupation of the vil-lagers is agriculture and animal

husbandry. In a study conductedby Anumukti, a journal devotedto non-nuclear, it is stated that,as high as 55.3% of the house-hold in the villages have at leasthaving regular employment withthe UCIL either as casual millworkers. · The Mixed category[Comprises a broader category,mostly Sadans, dalits and othercastes work in the UCIL millsand mines as workers and wagelabourers]. The Santhals, a dom-inant tribe in Jaduguda and near-by villages have a century old,traditional system of local self-governance known as Manjhi-Pargana System (MPS) at the vil-lage and intermediate levelresponsible for the overall devel-opment of the Santhal commu-nities.

2. Uranium is not the onlyradioactive element found in theore. There are a dozen or so oth-ers known as uranium decayproducts; among them are,Thorium-230, Radium-226, andRadon-222. Each of these pres-ents a unique hazard to peopleand other living creatures com-ing into contact with them.These wastes are radioactive foraround 250,000 years; in humanterms this might as well be for-ever. In addition to the radiolog-ical hazard, uranium ores com-monly contain varying concen-trations of zinc, lead, man-ganese, cadmium and arsenic.None of these other elementsare removed during processing;all remain in the tailings alongwith residues of the processchemicals used to extract theuranium.

3. It was an early demand of

theirs that this practice be

stopped, which UCIL even-

tually agreed to.

4. The World Uranium

Hearing (WUH) took place

from 13-19 September 1992

in Salzburg, Austria.

Founded by Claus Biegert in

December and it is regis-

tered as a non-profit organi-

sation in Munich, Germany.

It was an unprecedented

gathering of indigenous

people affected by the

nuclear industry, with focus

on uranium mining. In the

Hearing, about 80 indige-

nous and 30 non-Indigenous

people, representing 25

indigenous nations and 27

countries, made testimonies.

All continents were repre-

sented. It was a massive

indictment against the

nuclear industry for contam-

inating water and land and

for disregard of human

rights.

The World Uranium wasBased on testimonies and expe-riences from around the world,Based on the evidence of dam-age to indigenous people, cul-ture, economy, land, water, andair, Based on indigenous peo-ple's respect for spiritual values,beliefs, and practices, and theiropposition to the destruction oftheir existence. The 'Council ofJurists' consisted of scholarswith commitment and expertisein human rights and environ-mental law at the internationaland national levels, as well aslawyers who have worked topromote sustainable develop-

58

ment to protect the interest ofIndigenous peoples, and to pro-tect the public from nuclearrisks. A six-page leaflet suitablefor mailings was available inGerman. Also helping to pro-mote the WUH was a video,"The Death that Creeps fromthe Earth" (in English, Germanand Russian), and the firstEuropean Group Show of heAtomic Photographers Guild.This photo exhibition remainedin Europe until the end of1993. In the Hearing there weretestimonies from around theworld by the peoples of themountains, the forests, thedeserts and the oceans, whosuffer daily from uranium min-ing, nuclear weapons testing,nuclear power generation andradioactive waste. These testi-monies showed the peoples'intimate relationship with theEarth and the destruction ofthe natural environment theydepended upon, culturally, spir-itually and materially. It becameclear that each phase of thenuclear process - civilian or mil-itary - has a deadly impact on allforms of life Delegates heardtestimonies from around theworld by the peoples of themountains, the forests, thedeserts and the oceans, whosuffer daily from uranium min-ing, nuclear weapons testing,nuclear power generation andradioactive waste.. These testi-monies showed the peoples'intimate relationship with theEarth and the destruction ofthe natural environment theydepend upon, culturally, spiritu-ally and materially. It becameclear that each phase of the

nuclear process - civilian or mil-itary - has a deadly impact on allforms of life. It was realisedthat the inhabitants of thisplanet, responsible for the gen-erations to come, have to livewith consequences of ourradioactive heritage from nowon. Together, the delegatesstood and said: No moreexploitation of lands and peo-ples by uranium mining, nuclearpower generation, nuclear test-ing, and radioactive wastedumping; Clean up and restoreall homelands; End the secrecyand fully disclose all informa-tion about the nuclear industryand its dangers; Provide full andfair compensation for damageto: peoples, families and com-munities, cultures andeconomies, homelands, water,air, and all living things; Provideindependent and objectivemonitoring of human healthand the well being of all livingthings affected by the nuclearchain. In view of the unity ofhumanity and the world, theymade an appeal on behalf offuture generations to use sus-tainable, renewable, and life-enhancing energy alternatives.

5. Historically, the Manjhi

Pargana system started los-

ing its authority with the

advent of the British colo-

nial power. Even in

Jadugoda and its villages,

the Manjhi Pargana System

became redundant. This

process continued after the

independence. Various leg-

islations made the system

ineffective and dysfunction-

al. The 'Movement for

Tribal self-rule' launched in

1996 resulted in the enact-

ment of Provisions of

Panchayat (extended to the

Scheduled Areas) Act 1996

(PESA-96) by the

Parliament. Manjhi Pargana

System, which had become

redundant in Jaduguda, he

said, "When we were dis-

possessed from our land by

UCIL, the Pargana did not

even stand against it and

unite his tribal brethren

against it. He miserably

failed in performing his

duty. In Santhal history, you

would see that Parganas

have stood along with his

tribal brethren like an unfal-

tering rock whenever the

'intruders' attempted to dis-

possess of their land.

Jaduguda, Bhatin and

Narwapahar were built on

Santhali land. Bihar

Government leased this

land to UCIL. But, accord-

ing to SNT, Chotanagpur

Tenancy Act, Fifth Schedule

Area Act and Traditional

Self-rule system, the land

belongs to Santhal commu-

nity. Bihar Government vio-

lated all the acts and flouted

all the norms in the air. In

the name of 'national devel-

opment' adivasis dispos-

sessed of their land did not

receive any compensation.

As a Pargana, Haripada

failed to perform, as he was

not aware of the acts and

his role. First, the land was

acquired by Atomic Energy

Commission (AEC), direct-

ly under Prime Minister,

59

and later on transferred it to

UCIL. Traditional self-rul-

ing system was non-opera-

tional due to direct inter-

vention of the

Government."

The fundamental and the

basic tenet of the Act empow-

ered the traditional village

councils under Manjhi Pargana

System to govern themselves

on their own in accordance with

their traditions and customs in

all matters pertaining to their

own socio-political, economic

and cultural development. The

Jharkhand Government ratified

this Act in 2001. The PESA-96

provides adivasis for self-gover-

nance and now they have legal

and Constitutional power to

organise themselves, plan,

implement, review and monitor

their own programmes of

development. In Jaduguda and

nearby villages, as Dumka

Murmu, General Secretary,

Jharkhandis Organisation

Against Radiation (JOAR) said,

"Being a part of the 'Movement

for tribal self-rule', it was our

historical obligation to revive

the Manjhi Pargana System in

our areas of operation. Manjhi

were headman of the village

and Pargana had control over

them. A Pargana has a control

over 60 villages. Identity cards

were issued by JOAR to the

Manjhis and Parganas. It was by

strengthening of Manjhi

Pargana System, that the advan-

tage regarding mass conscious-

ness on radiation issues sur-

faced and spread."

6. Banduhurung is 25 kms from

Jaduguda and 10 Kms from

Jamshedpur.

7. He mobilised people in sup-

port of JOAR's direct

action at Chatijkocha, in

1996 and 1997, when third

tailing pond was construct-

ed, said, "

8. In 1984, when mining start-

ed in Turamdih, the houses

of 375 families were demol-

ished and land acquired by

UCIL but they have not got

any job. UCIL's compensa-

tion followed the 1970

package. According to 1970

package, if an acre is

acquired the UCIL pays a

compensation of Rs.

12,000, Rs.15,000 and

Rs.18,000 based on the fer-

tility of the land.

9 Of 45 major minerals such

as coal, iron ore, magnetite,

manganese, bauxite,

graphite, limestone,

dolomite, uranium etc are

found in tribal areas con-

tributing some 56% of the

national total mineral earn-

ings in terms of value. Of

the 4,175 working mines

reported by the Indian

Bureau of Mines in 1991-

92, approximately 3500

could be assumed to be in

the tribal areas. Income to

the government from

forests rose from Rs.5.6

million in 1969-70 to more

than Rs.13 billions in the

1970s. The bulk of the

nation's productive wealth

lay in the tribal territories.

Yet the tribals have been

driven out, marginalised and

robbed of dignity by the

very process of 'national

development'.

Jharkhand is estimated to

have more than a third of

India's total mineral wealth. It

has more than a third of the

coal deposits in the country and

the only region for the mining

of coking coal. The state has

half of the country's reserves

of mica, 23 percent of iron ore

and 34 percent of copper

reserves. Fireclay, manganese

ore, uranium, bauxite, kyanite,

china clay etc. are also abun-

dantly found in Jharkhand.

Large-scale mining of major

minerals started in Jharkhand as

early as 1890. Coal mining in

Jharia began its operations in

1886, iron ore mining started at

Gurumahisini in 1911,

Badampahar and Sulaipet in

1923, Noamundi in 1926, baux-

ite mining in Palamau and

Lohardaga in 1940, mica mines

in Hazaribagh and Koderma in

1930. Presently there are about

398 working mines in the state.

* Tarun Kanti Bose is a veterandevelopment journalist who hasdone seminal works on various

social issues including radiation haz-ards related to uranium mining.

[Source:http://jadugoda.jharkhand.org.in/2009/05/adivasi-live-under-nuclear-terror-

in.html]

60

CNDP

The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace(CNDP) is India’s national network of over 200organisations, including grassroots groups, massmovements and advocacy organisations, as wellas individuals. Formed in November 2000, CNDPdemands that India and Pakistan roll back theirnuclear weapons programmes. Our emphasis:

� No to further nuclear testing� No to induction and deployment of nuclear

weapons � Yes to global and regional nuclear disarma-

ment

CNDP works to raise mass awareness throughschools and colleges programmes, publications,audio and visual materials, and campaigning andlobbying at various levels.

CNDP membership is open is both individuals andorganisations. So if you believe nuclear weaponsare evil and peace is important, fill in theMembership Form!

For Private Circulation OnlyPublished from CNDP, A-124/6, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi - 110 016, Telefax: 26517814

E-mail: cndpindia@gmail.com, Website: www.cndpindia.orgEditors: Ilina Sen, Anil Chaudhary, Sukla Sen

Copy Editor: P K Sundaram

Please mail your Draft/Cheque, drawn infavour of “peace-cndp”, payable at NewDelhi, toCNDP A-124/6, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi110 016

Membership FormAnnual Membership Fee: Students Rs. 20, Individuals Rs. 100,Organisations Rs. 500

Name:

Organisation:

Address:

Phone:e-mail: