Uranium weapons fallout part of our making
[SMH]Date: 24/01/2001
Australia is far from an innocent bystander
to the damage being done by
weapons that use depleted uranium, writes
Helen Caldicott.
The evil legacy of the depleted uranium, or
DU, weapons used by the allied
forces in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo
is causing a furore in Europe.
Seven Italian soldiers who served in the Balkans
have died of leukemia,
while 30 are seriously ill, 12 with cancer.
France, Portugal, Holland,
Belgium and Spain also have soldiers who are
developing malignancies.
The British Government, facing an anguished
and angry outcry from its
military veterans, has finally and reluctantly
agreed to study the issue.
The Pentagon, however, steadfastly maintains
that DU poses no threat to
health.
Why should Australians care? Because these
DU munitions almost certainly
contained uranium mined in Australia.
DU is actually uranium 238. It is what is left
after the fissionable
element uranium 235 is extracted from the
ore used as fuel for weapons and
nuclear reactors.
About 700,000 tonnes of this seemingly useless
but hazardous radioactive
material had accumulated over the past half
century throughout the United
States until the American military discovered
that it was not so useless
after all.
Almost twice as dense as lead, it sliced through
the armour of tanks like a
hot knife through butter. Eureka: it was there
and what's more it was free,
so DU bullets and shells would be cheap to
make as well.
But uranium 238 has other properties. It is
pyrophoric, bursting into
flames when it hits a tank at great speed.
The fire oxidises the uranium, converting it
to tiny aerosolised particles
that can be inhaled into the small air passages
of the lung where the
material often remains for many years.
As far back as 1943, scientists in the Manhattan
Project were postulating
that uranium could be used on the battlefield
as an air and terrain
contaminant.
Inhaling it would cause "bronchial irritation"
and the acute radiation
effects could induce ulcers and perforations
of the gut followed by death.
Because it is radioactive, uranium 238 can
damage cells in the lung, bone,
kidney, and lymph glands, causing cancer in
those organs as well as cancer
of the white blood cells, leukemia.
It is also a heavy metal and causes a kidney
disease called nephritis. It
is not surprising that Gulf War veterans are
excreting uranium 238 in their
urine and semen.
Children in Iraq - where over a million pounds
of DU in spent shells and
aerosolised powder was left by the allies
- are reported to have a higher
than normal incidence of malignancies and
congenital malformations.
Similar reports are emerging from Bosnian and
Kosovo hospitals, while
studies of children of American veterans seem
to show a higher than normal
incidence of congenital disease.
Because uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.5
billion years, and plutonium,
which is by orders of magnitude more carcinogenic
than uranium, has a
shorter half life of only 240,400 years, Iraq,
Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo
are now contaminated with carcinogenic radioactive
elements forever.
And because the latent period of carcinogenes
- that is, the incubation
time for cancer - is two to 10 years for leukemia
and 15 to 60 years for
solid cancer, it is almost certain that the
reported malignancies in the
NATO troops and peacekeepers who served in
the Balkans, and in the American
soldiers and their allies who served in the
Gulf, as well as civilians who
live in these countries, are just the tip
of the iceberg.
So what is the Australian connection? The Department
of Energy in the US
has just admitted that contaminated uranium
reprocessed from military
reactors had been mixed in with the "pure"
DU.
This contaminated uranium also contains traces
of plutonium and uranium
236, and probably neptunium and americium
- elements which are actually
thousands of times more carcinogenic than
the uranium 238.
These DU munitions almost certainly contain
Australian uranium because the
thousands of tonnes of ore we ship routinely
to the US is enriched at the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plant in Paducah,
Kentucky, the same plant where
the DU for weapons is sourced.
Thus the evil legacy of DU is partly Australia's.
When will we act to stop it?
Dr Helen Caldicott is a pediatrician and founder
of Our Common Future
Party.
Iraq: The Great Cover-Up
John Pilger
Monday 22nd January 2001
The New Statesman
Most victims of depleted uranium are not soldiers,
but civilians, many
of them children. John Pilger reports on what
one doctor calls "another
Hiroshima"
On the eve of an election campaign, the Blair
government is attempting,
with mounting desperation, to suppress a scandal
potentially greater
than the arms-to-Iraq cover-up. This is the
deaths of hundreds of
thousands of people, perhaps many more, caused
by decisions taken in
Whitehall and Washington. Moreover, the evidence
of deceit and lying
points to at least two Cabinet ministers and
three junior ministers.
At its centre is the unerring, wilful destruction
of a whole society,
Iraq, the aim of which is to keep the regime
in Baghdad weak enough to
be influenced by the west and yet strong enough
to control its own
people. This is longstanding Anglo-American
policy. Contrary to the
propaganda version about protecting Iraq's
ethnic peoples, the objective
is to prevent a Kurdish secession in the north
and the establishment of
a Shi'ite religious state in the rest of the
country, while maintaining
the west's dominance of the region and its
access to cheap oil.
The victims of this policy are 20 million Iraqis,
uniquely isolated from
the rest of humanity by an economic embargo
whose viciousness has been
compared with a medieval siege. The word "genocide"
has been used by
experts on international law and other cautious
voices, such as Denis
Halliday, the former assistant secretary general
of the United Nations,
who resigned as the UN's senior humanitarian
official in Iraq, and Hans
von Sponeck, his successor, who also resigned
in protest. Each had 34
years at the UN and were acclaimed in their
field; their resignations,
along with the head of the World Food Programme
in Baghdad, were
unprecedented.
After more than a decade of sanctions, no one
on the Security Council
wants them, except the United States and Britain.
The French foreign
minister, Hubert Vedrine, has called them
"cruel, because they
exclusively punish the Iraqi people and the
weakest among them, and
ineffective, because they don't touch the
regime". Had Saddam Hussein
said on television "we think the price is
worth it", referring to
Unicef's figure of half a million child deaths,
he would have been
called a monster by the British government.
Madeleine Albright said
that. Whitehall remained silent.
The Blair government has played the traditional
role of Washington's
proxy with particular enthusiasm. The latest
Security Council
resolution, 1284, was drafted by British officials
in New York. They are
said to be proud of it. Peter Hain, the Foreign
Office minister,
constantly refers to it as "Iraq's way out".
In fact, it is a specious
set of demands, requiring the return of weapons
inspectors, but not
offering any guarantee that sanctions will
be suspended if the regime
complies. Last year, Jon Davies, then head
of the Iraq desk at the
Foreign Office, admitted the "lack of clarity
in exactly what the
provisions will be". The suspicion all along,
says Dr Eric Herring, the
Bristol University specialist, is that "US
and British policy is one of
continually moving or hiding the goalposts
so that compliance [by Iraq]
becomes impossible and so that the sanctions
cannot be lifted".
In recent months, in the columns of the New
Statesman and the Guardian,
Peter Hain has defended a sanctions regime
that, says Unicef, is a
principal cause of the deaths of at least
180 children every day. Hain's
articles and letters are scripted by Foreign
Office officials using the
familiar, weasel lexicon that denied British
support for the Khmer
Rouge, the use of Hawk aircraft in East Timor
and the illegal shipment
of weapons parts to Britain's favourite 1980s
tyrant, Saddam Hussein.
Sir Richard Scott's inquiry acknowledged their
"culture of lying".
You get a sense of the scale of lying from
Hain's latest letter to the
NS (15 January), in which he claimed that
"about $16bn of humanitarian
relief was available to the Iraqi people last
year". Quoting UN
documents, Hans von Sponeck replies in this
issue (page 37) that the
figure was actually for four years and that,
after reparations are paid
to Kuwait and the oil companies, Iraq is left
with just $100 a year with
which to keep one human being alive. That
Hain does not appear even to
question the competence of those who write
his disinformation is
remarkable. That he allows the bureaucracy
of a rapacious order he once
opposed to invoke his anti-apartheid record
is a bleak irony. That he is
said privately to have serious doubts about
sanctions, which he rejected
for Zimbabwe, saying they would "hurt the
ordinary people, not the
elite", is a measure of his ambition, and
perhaps explains why he
refuses to engage his critics, preferring
rhetoric and abuse. Each time
he calls a principled, informed critic, such
as Halliday and von
Sponeck, "a dupe of Saddam Hussein", there
is an echo of the apartheid
regime calling a young Hain "a dupe of communism".
The sanctions issue is one of three related
scandals involving epic
suffering and loss of life. The truth about
the effects of depleted
uranium in shells fired in the 1991 Gulf war
and Nato's 1999 attack on
Yugoslavia, is that the Americans and British
waged a form of nuclear
warfare on civilian populations, disregarding
the health and safety of
their own troops. This was largely to test
the Pentagon's post-cold war
strategy of "all-out war".
On 9 January, John Spellar, the Defence Minister,
told the House of
Commons that the conclusion of many years
of research showed "there is
no evidence linking DU to cancers or to the
more general ill health
being experienced by some Gulf veterans".
This echoes Peter Hain, who
said there had been "no credible research
data". In fact, the data is
credible and voluminous, dating back to the
development of the atomic
bomb in 1943, when Brigadier General Leslie
Groves, the head of the
Manhattan Project, warned that particles of
uranium used in ammunition
could cause "permanent lung damage". In 1991,
the UK Atomic Energy
Authority warned that, if particles from merely
8 per cent of the DU
used in the Gulf were inhaled, there could
be "300,000 potential
deaths".
Spellar claimed there had been no rise in the
number of kidney ailments
or cancers among veterans of the Gulf war.
The Ministry of Defence has
been told by the National Gulf Veterans and
Families Association of a
dramatic increase in both diseases among veterans.
Last year, Speller
said: "We are unaware of anything that shows
depleted uranium has caused
any ill health or death of people who served
in Kosovo or Bosnia."
Again, this was false. Nato's own guidelines
include: "Inhalation of
insoluble depleted uranium dust particles
has been associated with
long-term health effects including cancers
and birth defects." It was
only after six Italian soldiers, who had served
in Kosovo, died from
leukaemia, that the scandal caused panic in
Nato, with the Defence
Secretary, Geoffrey Hoon, contradicting himself,
saying DU posed a
"limited risk", then "no risks", then, bizarrely,
that it is "protecting
British forces".
For the Iraqi people, however, the cover-up
continues. What has been
striking about the political and media reaction
over the past fortnight
is that most of the victims of depleted uranium
have rated barely a
mention. Yet Tony Blair himself was made aware
of their suffering when
he was sent, in March 1999, UN statistics,
published in the British
Medical Journal, showing a sevenfold increase
in cancer in southern Iraq
between 1989 and 1994.
It is in southern Iraq that the theoretical
figure of "500,000 potential
deaths" can be applied, in a desert landscape
where the dust gets in
your eyes, nose and throat, swirling around
people in the street and
children in playgrounds. In Basra's hospitals,
the cancer wards are
overflowing. Before the Gulf war, they did
not exist. "The dust carries
death," Dr Jawad Al-Ali, a cancer specialist
and member of Britain's
Royal College of Physicians, told me. "Our
own studies indicate that
more than 40 per cent of the population in
this area will get cancer in
five years' time to begin with, then long
afterwards. Most of my own
family now have cancer, and we have no history
of the disease. It has
spread to the medical staff of this hospital.
We are living through
another Hiroshima. Of course, we don't know
the precise source of the
contamination, because we are not allowed
[under sanctions] to get the
equipment to conduct a proper scientific survey,
or even to test the
excess level in our bodies. We suspect depleted
uranium. There simply
can be no other explanation."
The Sanctions Committee in New York has blocked
or delayed a range of
cancer diagnostic equipment and drugs, even
painkillers. Professor Karol
Sikora, as chief of the cancer programme of
the World Health
Organisation, wrote in the British Medical
Journal: "Requested
radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs
and analgesics are
consistently blocked by United States and
British advisers [to the
Sanctions Committee]. There seems to be a
rather ludicrous notion that
such agents could be converted into chemical
or other weapons."
Professor Sikora told me: "The saddest thing
I saw in Iraq was children
dying because there was no chemotherapy and
no pain control. It seemed
crazy they couldn't have morphine, because
for everybody with cancer
pain, it is the best drug. When I was there,
they had a little bottle of
aspirin pills to go round 200 patients in
pain." Although there have
since been improvements in some areas, more
than 1,000 life-saving items
remain "on hold" in New York, with Kofi Annan
personally appealing for
their release "without delay".
I interviewed Professor Doug Rokke, the US
Army health physicist who led
the "clean-up" of depleted uranium in Kuwait.
He now has 5,000 times the
permissible level of radiation in his body,
and is ill. "There can be no
reasonable doubt about this," he said. "As
a result of the heavy metal
and radiological poison of DU, people in southern
Iraq are experiencing
respiratory problems, breathing problems,
kidney problems, cancers.
Members of my own team have died or are dying
from cancer . . . At
various meetings and conferences, the Iraqis
have asked for the normal
medical treatment protocols. The US Department
of Defense and the
British Ministry of Defence have refused them.
I attended a conference
in Washington where the Iraqis came looking
for help. They approached
myself, officials of the Defense Department
and the British MoD. They
were told it was their responsibility; they
were rebuffed."
The third strand in the cover-up is the killing
of Iraqi civilians by
RAF and American aircraft in the "no-fly zones".
As Hans von Sponeck
points out in his letter, these violate international
law. In a
five-month period surveyed by the UN Security
Sector, almost half the
casualties were civilians. I interviewed eyewitnesses
to one of the
attacks described in the UN report. A shepherd
family of six - a
grandfather, the father and four children
- were killed by a British or
American pilot, who made two passes at them
in open desert. Pieces of
the missile lay among the remains of their
sheep. United Nations staff -
not the Iraqi government - confirmed in person
the facts of this
atrocity. The Blair government has spent £800m
bombing Iraq.
In his 15 January letter to the NS, Peter Hain
described my reference to
the possibility that he, along with other
western politicians, might
find themselves summoned before the new International
Criminal Court as
"gratuitous". It is far from gratuitous. A
report for the UN Secretary
General, written by Professor Marc Bossuyt,
a distinguished authority on
international law, says that the "sanctions
regime against Iraq is
unequivocally illegal under existing human
rights law" and "could raise
questions under the Genocide Convention".
His subtext is that if the new
court is to have authority, it cannot merely
dispense the justice of the
powerful. A growing body of legal opinion
agrees that the court has a
duty, as Eric Herring wrote, to investigate
"not only the regime, but
also the UN bombing and sanctions which have
violated the human rights
of Iraqi civilians on a vast scale by denying
them many of the means
necessary for survival. It should also investigate
those who assisted
[Saddam Hussein's] programmes of now prohibited
weapons, including
western governments and companies."
Last year, Peter Hain blocked a parliamentary
request to publish the
full list of culpable British companies Why?
A prosecutor might ask why,
then ask who has killed the most number of
innocent people in Iraq:
Saddam Hussein, or British and American murderous
policy-makers? The
answer may well put the murderous tyrant in
second place.
We're punishing children, not Saddam
The Australian, 17 Jan 2001
TEN years after the start of the 1991 Gulf
War, the people of Iraq
remain victims of a silent weapon – comprehensive
economic
sanctions.
Sanctions had been imposed by the UN Security
Council in August
1990 to force the restoration of the sovereignty
of Kuwait, but were
reimposed after the war by Security Council
resolution 687 on April 3,
1991, the primary goals of which were the
elimination of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction and the capacity
to produce such
weapons.
After a decade of suffering by innocent
people, and the deaths of
children on a scale far exceeding that caused
by any military weapon
in history, the sanctions continue to bring
misery and degradation to
all sectors of Iraqi society except their
target, the Iraqi Government.
Surveys by agencies such as the UN Children's
Fund and an
enormous amount of anecdotal information indicate
that the impact of
sanctions has seen a dramatic increase in
infant mortality and
morbidity in the general population in Iraq.
The scale of the tragedy is
not questioned by any humanitarian agency
which has reported on
the situation.
As early as 1993 the Food and Agriculture
Organisation and the
World Food Program reported that the sanctions
had virtually
paralysed the whole economy and generated
persistent deprivation,
chronic hunger, endemic undernutrition, massive
unemployment and
widespread human suffering. The situation
has not improved since
then.
The oil-for-food program, which began
in 1996 to enable Iraq to sell
a small amount of oil in order to buy food
and medicines, has barely
made an impact on the gravity of the suffering.
The CARE
organisation reports that children, mothers,
the aged and sick were all
cared for before 1990, but are now dying while
the outside world
mistakenly believes it has solved Iraq's problems
with the
much-delayed oil-for-food shipments.
Both former heads of the oil-for-food
program, Denis Halliday and
Hans Von Sponeck, resigned from the UN in
protest at the effects of
the sanctions. Von Sponeck stated: "As a UN
official, I should not be
expected to be silent to that which I recognise
as a true human
tragedy that needs to be ended."
Halliday refers to the sanctions as genocide.
Both men resigned not
because of Iraqi Government corruption but
because of UN Security
Council policy.
The question of Iraq's disarmament is an important
one. There is no
doubt that the UNSCOM (United Nations Special
Commission) weapons
inspection teams were extraordinarily effective
in eliminating the vast
bulk of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
and the capacity to
produce them. Equally, however, there is no
guarantee that such
weapons will not be built again. Since the
departure of UNSCOM from
Iraq in December 1998, such an outcome is
perhaps even more likely
than previously.
As the continuation of sanctions has
been ineffective in securing the
resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq,
it is difficult to argue that
the sanctions are still an essential element
in suppressing Iraq's
weapons programs. It is important to note
also that Security Council
resolution 687 of 1991 did not refer only
to Iraq's disarmament but to
(paragraph 14) the goal of establishing a
Middle East zone free from
weapons of mass destruction. It is perhaps
even clearer now than in
1991 that the elimination of these weapons
from the region is
imperative, and yet this essential step towards
peace remains
neglected.
The Government of Iraq bears enormous
responsibility for the welfare
of the Iraqi people. Similarly, the UN Security
Council bears
responsibility for the effects of its own
policies. However, as both
sides in this dispute refuse to budge, the
children of Iraq continue to
die. It would not be unreasonable to expect
that those nations which
claim higher moral standing might take it
upon themselves to break
this impasse.
While the imposition of sanctions in
1990,
and again in 1991, might
have appeared at the time the best available
instrument of coercion,
10 years later we see that comprehensive economic
sanctions have
limited effect when applied to such a situation
as Iraq. Only the most
vulnerable will suffer.
It is time for a change of direction.
In particular, it is time to allow
the people of Iraq to rebuild their society,
to create a future for their
children, and to engage with the international
community. Economic
sanctions should be lifted, but strict sanctions
on military materials
must remain. And it is time to work for a
zone free of all weapons of
mass destruction in the Middle East.
As Australians proudly celebrate our
centenary of Federation, we
must strive to retain the noble principles
which unite us, the principles
of justice and a fair go, and to assert our
independent standing in the
international community. We urge you to review
Australia's policy
towards Iraq so that it properly reflects
our common aspirations for
peace with justice for all people, including
the people of Iraq.
Malcolm Fraser, Chairman CARE Australia, former prime minister,
Reverend Francis P. Carroll, Catholic Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn,
Elizabeth Evatt AC, former chief judge of the Family Court,
Doug Everingham, former federal minister for
health, member National
Consultative Committee on Peace and Disarmament,
Reverend Leonard Anthony Faulkner, Catholic
Archbishop of Adelaide,
Peter Garrett, President Australian Conservation
Foundation,
Professor Ian Maddocks, chairman, National
Consultative Committee
on Peace and Disarmament,
Sir William Refshauge, patron Medical Association for Prevention of War,
Chris Sidoti, former human rights commissioner.