From Gordon Edwards - http://www.ccnr.org
Fellow abolitionists:
When "informed" that depleted uranium, the stuff left over from
the enrichment of uranium for use as fuel in nuclear reactors,
is being used by the US military for weapons, the Government of
Canada sanctimoniously intones that it is the "principle of
fungibility" at work -- the uranium atoms are all blended together,
some from Canada, some from Australia, some from South
Africa, some from the USA -- and the "stuff" that is used for
weapons is deemed to be American stuff and therefore OK.
It was Joe Clark, in one of his rare moments of real wit,
who said in the House of Commons (decades ago!): "It
sounds to me like the principle of fudge-ability,
not fungibility."
Clark was referring to the fact that depleted uranium, left over
from the enrichment process, has been used for military
purposes for decades -- not just to make DU munitions,
as it is used now, but to make the plutonium for nuclear
warheads in special "military production reactors", and to
amplify the explosive power of H-bombs by using DU as
a tertiary nuclear explosive.
The American military simply helps itself to the DU for
whatever it needs, and uses it for weapons. Never mind
that a significant proportion is of Canadian origin.
How does Canada reconcile this with the provisions of
the bilateral agreement that stipulates that Canadian-origin
nuclear materials must not be used for bombs? Simple.
They insist, contrary to elementary logic, that it isn't
happening. They point to the fact that there is more than
enough DU that is NOT being used for weapons to account
for the Canadian "component" of the uranium supply!
This morally bankrupt version of a ledger-book mentality
would never be accepted if the country in question was
(say) North Korea, or Pakistan, or Iran. Would Canada
accept a situation in which it was sending uranium to these
countries for enrichment and they were routinely using the
DU for nuclear and non-nuclear weapons? I think not!
In fact, during the Cold War years, when Canada sent
uranium to the USSR (Riga in Latvia) for enrichment, the
USSR was NOT ALLOWED to keep the DU for precisely
this reason. When the USSR sent the enriched uranium
fuel to the customer, they had to ALSO send the DU --
even though the customer didn't really want it -- because
of the military usefulness of the DU.
See my 1985 article "Fuelling the Nuclear Arms Race" http://www.ccnr.org/non_prolif
Let me paint a picture for you. Imagine that the bank that
you deal with is investing in a brutal totalitarian regime that
is a pariah to all right-thinking individuals. Indignantly, you
go to the bank manager and say that you want to stop
doing business with them because you don't want any of
your money going to support this regime's activities.
The bank manager says, "Oh no, m'sieur, you misunderstand.
We are not using your money. Your money is safe in the vault
-- come and see!" And he leads you into the vault where there
is money galore -- obviously more than your deposits add up to.
So you decide to keep dealing with the bank and say to yourself
you are fully justified to close your eyes to the bank's odious
investments, for it evidently has nothing to do with you.
But the bank manager tells ALL his customers the same thing.
Apparently, NO ONE's money is being used for these unethical
investments. It is the perfect crime.
That's what is happening with uranium that is ostensibly
Canadian in origin. In fact EVERY uranium mine in the world
can claim that ITS uranium output is for peaceful purposes only,
even though large amounts of uranium are being used for
military purposes all the time, and has been for many decades.
It is a policy of total ethical irresponsibility based on a hypocritical
double standard.
If those in the civilian nuclear industry were truly interested in
making the world a better and safer place and building a
sustainable future, they should be the first to insist that nuclear
weapons have to be completely abolished and that military use
of uranium should not be condoned. Even Henry Kissinger
has joined with George Schulz and other past officials of US
governments to say that nuclear weapons have to be totally
eliminated if we are to have any hope for a sustainable future.
El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, says the world is on the brink of
a nuclear abyss -- not because of the terrorists or the rogue
states, but because of the refusal of USA, Russia, UK, China,
France to abolish their nuclear arsenals.
But the Canadian Government and the nuclear industry says
nothing, ever, against it, invoking the "principle of fungibility"
to justify their silence. As Ghandi said, it is not only the bad
acts of bad people, but the appalling indifference of the good
people that sustains the world in patterns of injustice.
Gordon Edwards.
Comments