English news

Nic Balthazar directs film clip in Oostende: biggest ever event in Belgium against climate change

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 05:31:32 -0500

10th August 2008, Oostende, Brussels ? Nic Balthazar today directed more than 6,000 members of the public in the film clip ?SOS Climate?. The event, which took place on the Klein Strand in Oostende, forms part of ?The Big Ask? climate campaign of Friends of the Earth, calling for an annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Belgium and across Europe. The scenes recorded today included a giant animated human banner giving messages to politicians that it is time to take action on climate change, as well as smaller scenes with well known actors including Micha?l Pas, Ann Miller, Herr Seele, Benthe De Graeve. There were DJ sets from Flip Kowlier and Gabri?l Rios, Axel Daeseleire, Adriaan Van den Hoof, Zohra.
INTERNATIONAL: This event is part of a campaign which is running in 17 European countries and Japan. In all these countries citizens are calling on their politicians to commit to legally binding annual cuts in climate changing emissions. In the UK, Friends of the Earth?s ?Big Ask? has already led to draft law for a climate bill which will be implemented before the end of the year.
BELGIUM: The ?SOS Klimaat? event comes 2 days after the Belgian Disasterfund announced a significant increase in flooding in Belgium over the past decade. Since 2000 the Directie Rampenschade van Binnenlandse Zaken has recorded 54 official disasters, mainly floodings ? already 5 times more than in the nineties. This increase can be directly linked to the effects of climate change, which will significantly increase the amount of rain that falls in North-Western Europe. Combined with sea level rise, an increase in stormy weather caused by climate change puts up to 300 million people in low lying coastal regions around the planet at risk from flooding. A global temperature increase of 2?C could also potentially trigger a ?tipping point? where the increased temperature would cause impacts such as the release of methane from frozen tundra. As methane is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, this would create a spiral of ?runaway climate change?.
While Belgium is being increasingly affected by the effects of climate change, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology placed Belgium at the bottom of the class in a recent international survey of the action that countries are taking to prevent greenhouse gas emissions. The survey found that Belgium had yet to take any significant structural steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The message of The Big Ask climate campaign is that we have a very limited window of opportunity to take action on climate change, and that we need to start taking action now to prevent these catastrophic impacts. The campaign is calling for a strong climate law in Belgium, which would oblige the Belgian government to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 3% per year, leading to a 30% decrease by 2020 and a 90% decrease by 2050.
Koen Cornelis , climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth stated: ?In order to prevent the catastrophic impacts of climate change, we need to achieve significant decreases in greenhouse gas emissions. The issue is too urgent to put off until some point in the future. We need to see annual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and we believe the best way to achieve this is with a strong and binding climate law, which puts obligations on the government to achieve these changes. Making this film clip with thousands of people is a way to show that many people are aware of the need to take action to prevent catastrophic climate change, and also to show that we have a roadmap for how to achieve this.?
The campaign received the support of Nic Balthazar, and many of the most important companies in the Belgian audiovisual industry, to help realize this ambitious project. The Klein Strand of Oostende was transformed into a giant film set for the day, with members of the public from across Belgium, and as far away as Germany, France, the UK and the Netherlands answering the call to take part in the filming.
Many people took notice of the call to come to Oostende in the most ecologically friendly way possible. The majority of the participants arrived with the Kusttram, the bus or the train.

22 years after Chernobyl: ?Nuclear Power is no solution for climate change?

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:06:27 -0500

26 April 2008, exactly 22 years after the world?s largest nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, Friends of the Earth Flanders & Brussels states that nuclear power is not a solution to climate change. The environmental organization today organized a political debate and symbolic action on this issue at the nuclear power plant of Doel, Belgium. The events, which form part of ?The Big Ask? climate campaign, confront the proposition that nuclear power is a solution to climate change.

The political debate included speakers from Belgian government and opposition parties including: Jos Stassen (member of the Flemish Parliament, Groen!), Luc Maes (Alderman for the city of Beveren, Open VLD), Magda De Meyer (member of the federal parliament, sp.a), Gaston Meskens (Study Centre for Nuclear Energy), Nelly Maes (former member of the European parliament, VlaamsProgressieven).

Koen Cornelis, speaking in the debate on behalf of Friends of the Earth stated: ?The idea that nuclear power is a solution to climate change has received headlines once again over the past few days. This is simply the latest in a long line of misleading and dangerous statements to come from the nuclear industry and its supporters. The anniversary of the accident at Chernobyl should remind us that nuclear power is not safe. It is not clean. And it is not cheap.?

Referring to the fact that the Belgian law on the phase out of nuclear power continues to be called into question he stated: ?The uncertainty over the future of the energy market means that investments in renewable energy are effectively being obstructed. This is a serious problem if we are going to achieve the phase out of nuclear power, and achieve the necessary cuts in greenhouse gasses to prevent catastrophic climate change. The savings in greenhouse gas emissions that nuclear power could deliver - even with a massive program of new construction - will be too little, too late. Investment in nuclear power means less money for the development of renewable energy, energy efficiency and energy saving- all of which have the capacity to provide real savings over a shorter time frame.?

Following the debate, there was a commemoration for the victims of Chernobyl at Doel nuclear power plant, in East Flanders. Activists attached 443 colourful windmills to the fence of the plant, to symbolize the number of nuclear reactors currently active around the world. The windmills spelled out the words: ?No Nukes!?

The symbolic action paid particular attention to the largely forgotten victims of the disaster, the liquidators sent into Chernobyl to deal with the aftermath of the disaster. Several thousand of these workers have lost their lives as a result of their work in Chernobyl. During the action witness statements from many of these workers were read at the main entrance to the power plant. The text of these statements can be downloaded (in French) at:
http://www.chernobyl-day.org/spip.php?article72&lang=en

The symbolic action and debate are part of The Big Ask climate campaign.
(www.thebigask.be).

?The Big Ask? is a campaign for annual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across Europe. It is supported by Friends of the Earth groups in 17 European countries. Friends of the Earth believes that nuclear power is a dangerous, dirty and expensive source of energy, and as such has no part to play in the solution to the challenges posed by climate change.

For more information:
David Heller
Friends of the Earth (Flanders & Brussels)
Mobile: +32 (0)472 342 463
david@motherearth.org
www.thebigask.be

Saab warned to withdraw 'greenwash' ads or face legal challenge

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:22:52 -0600

Brussels, 10 January 2008 - Swedish car manufacturer, Saab was today told to
stop portraying its cars as environmentally friendly or face legal action
for misleading advertising.

A summons [1], instigated by Friends of the Earth Europe and delivered by
bailiff to Saab's Belgian office, calls on the company to remove all wording
and imagery from its website and brochures which associate its cars with
nature or the protection of the environment. It must also withdraw false
claims that driving a Saab reduces CO2 emissions. 

Friends of the Earth Europe also highlights in the document that Saab does
not display the CO2 emissions or fuel consumption figures of its 'Biopower'
engines on its website or in its brochures, which is a violation of Belgian
and European law. 

The manufacturer has eight days to meet the demands, after which time
Friends of the Earth Europe will file legal proceedings complaining against
the company?s misleading advertising. 

Jeroen Verhoeven, car efficiency campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe
said: "Saab is the latest carmaker to engage in 'greenwash' advertising
designed to enhance its green credentials. Instead of fooling consumers that
its cars don't damage the environment, Saab should be making real efforts to
improve the fuel efficiency of its vehicles."

The action by Friends of the Earth Europe follows a ruling in November last
year by the Belgian advertising standards authority (JEP) that Saab must
cease an advertisement campaign in which it claimed its 'Biopower' cars made
the roads, "finally turn green". The JEP deemed that the wording was in
breach of the environmental advertisement code which forbids advertisers
from implying a product has no impact on the environment, unless the claims
can be proven. 

Despite this ruling Saab has continued to claim on its website and in its
brochures that a car with a 'Biopower' engine will provide drivers with a
?clean conscience? about its environmental impact. Saab backs up this
assertion by stating that driving a car which runs on E85 - a blend of 85
per cent ethanol and 15 per cent petrol - will reduce its CO2 emissions by
80 per cent.

Friends of the Earth Europe argues that the advertising abuses consumer
concern for the environment and exploits possible lack of environmental
knowledge. Whether CO2 can be saved over the lifecycle of ethanol, and if so
by how much, is highly dependent on how the ethanol has been produced. As a
car manufacturer, Saab has no control over the origins and production
methods of ethanol available at the pump. Ethanol production has
wide-ranging negative environmental impacts such as increased water use and
land-use changes, and there are challenges in measuring life-cycle emissions
from ethanol. Consequently Saab cannot substantiate environmental claims
regarding ethanol use, and its statement that ethanol is environmentally
friendly is misleading. 

"Saab is using ethanol as a green alibi to cover up the fact that it is
failing to significantly reduce the fuel consumption of it cars," Mr
Verhoeven added. 

Contrary to its claims, the environmental performance of Saab's vehicles is
poor. According to official fuel consumption data, which is a key
determinant of how much CO2 cars release into the atmosphere, Saab cars rank
among the worst, rating from mediocre to very poor. [2] 

***

For more information, please contact: 

Jeroen Verhoeven, Car Efficiency Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 2542 6101 and +32 477 463181(Belgian mobile)

Francesca Gater, Communications Officer for Friends of the Earth Europe:
Tel: +32 2542 6105 and +32 485 930515 (Belgian mobile) 

***

NOTES TO EDITORS: 

[1] The text of the summons can be found at;
www.foeeurope.org/corporates/greenwash/Saab/Saab_summons_100108_EN.pdf
(English) 

www.foeeurope.org/corporates/greenwash/Saab/Saab_summons_100108_FR.pdf
(French)

[2] Belgian official fuel consumption data can be found at:
www.voiturepropre.be

Action at Bank of New York Mellon (Brussels) to oppose investment in Uranium Weapons

Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:07:51 -0600

Brussels, 6 November - Activists from the Belgian and International Coalitions to Ban Uranium Weapons, Netwerk Vlaanderen and Friends of the Earth today organised a “radioactive buffet” for staff in the entrance hall of the Brussels offices of The Bank of New York Mellon. The buffet was organised to oppose the involvement of the bank in funding the production of controversial depleted uranium weapons. These weapons are both chemically toxic and radioactive, and have caused serious health consequences for both military and civilians.

The radioactive buffet was one of many events taking place around the world to mark the publication of 'Too Risky for Business. Financial Institutions and Uranium Weapons', a report that details the role that 47 international banks support the manufacture of uranium weapons. The report shows the involvement of the Bank of New York mellon in supporting uranium weapon producers ATK, General Dynamics and GenCorp.

Activists wearing tuxedos and ball gowns distributed “radioactive” food and drinks to the staff of the bank, while musicians played classical music. The action was organised to highlight the consequences of the bank’s investment in the US arms companies ATK, GenCorp, and General Dynamics. These companies are three major producers of uranium weapons, which contain radioactive and chemically toxic depleted uranium.

The dangers of Uranium Weapons

Depleted uranium is a radioactive and chemically toxic waste product from the nuclear industry. It is used in anti-tank weapons and in the armour of tanks. The use of these weapons creates clouds of tiny metal particles that contaminate the battlefield and surrounding environment for millions of years. Scientific research has shown that depleted uranium causes cancer, birth defects, and other serious health problems. These effects have been recorded in both soldiers and civilians, and are evident well after the end of the armed conflict leaving a legacy of disaster..

Towards a ban

There is a growing awareness that these weapons violate the most fundamental human rights. Military trade unions, human rights organisations and the environmental and peace movements are all calling for a world-wide ban on the production of uranium weapons.

In June 2007 Belgium published a law that bans depleted uranium weapons. Belgium became the first country in the world to implement a ban on the manufacture, use, storage, sale, acquisition, supply and transport of uranium weapons. The ban on uranium weapons also raises questions about financial institutions that are contributing to the production of these deadly weapons.

Too risky for Business?

The companies who produce these weapons are readily supplied with capital by large financial groups, investments that make the production of these weapons possible. This is the conclusion of the report 'Too Risky for Business. Financial Institutions and Uranium Weapons.', published today by Netwerk Vlaanderen (B), the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW), and BankTrack.

The research report shows that more than 40 financial institutions are currently investing in producers of uranium weapons. Three US stock market listed companies: Alliant Techsystems, GenCorp and General Dynamics, are supported by financiers from Canada, the US, Japan, Great Britain, France, Germany, Taiwan, Singapore and Italy.

In the period July 2004 – June 2007, these institutions guaranteed credit facilities worth a total of at least 3 billion US $. The financial institutions have also underwritten the issuing of 4.2 billion US $ in bonds and 120 million US $ in shares in these companies. Various financiers also hold significant shareholdings in the producers of uranium weapons.

David Heller, of Friends of the Earth stated: “The civilian and military community calls on investors to act responsibly and put an end to their support for the production of Uranium Weapons. A number of investors have already taken this step. Others will hopefully follow. Governments also have an important role to play here. Just as with a ban on investments in weapons such as anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions, governments can ensure that banks are no longer legally able to invest in producers of uranium weapons.”

Via actions in many countries, the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons calls on the banks mentioned in this report to take a positive step and implement an investment policy that no longer allows this sort of investment.

Contacts:

ICBUW, Willem van den Panhuysen, tel:0032 473 71 75 18, willem@motherearth.org
Netwerk Vlaanderen, Inez Louwagie, tel 0032 498 68 29 40, inez@netwerk-vlaanderen.be, www.netwerkvlaanderen.be/en
Friends of the Earth, David Heller, tel 0032 472 34 24 63, david@motherearth.org, www.motherearth.org
BankTrack, David Barnden, tel 0031 302 33 43 43, david@banktrack.org, www.banktrack.org

Notes

1) The research report “Too Risky for Business. Financial Institutions and Uranium Weapons”, Netwerk Vlaanderen, ICBUW, BankTrack, November 2007 can be downloaded from: www.mymoneyclearconscience.be

Abolition 2000 calls on NSG governments to block US-India deal

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:06:04 -0500

ABOLITION 2000, a network of over 2000 organizations in more than 90 countries working for nuclear disarmament, today urged leaders of the 45 countries that control international nuclear trade as members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to reject the proposed US-India nuclear deal.

The US-India deal exempts India from US non-proliferation laws that have banned the sale of nuclear fuel and technology to India for about three decades. These laws were created because India used nuclear technology provided for peaceful purposes to make nuclear weapons. For the deal to proceed, the NSG countries must reach a consensus to grant India a similar special exemption from their nuclear trade rules.

Philip White, Coordinator of ABOLITION 2000's US-India Deal Working Group, said, "The agreement will fuel an arms race in South Asia. The International Panel on Fissile Materials has shown how the deal will enable India to increase many fold its production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and Pakistan is already taking steps to expand its nuclear weapons program."

Mr. White noted that "The deal undermines the basic bargain of the nuclear non-proliferation regime - you cannot benefit from nuclear trade if you make nuclear weapons. Pakistan and Israel, who are also outside the NPT, have already asked for exemptions. North Korea may echo join these demands. Some countries may ask why stay in NPT if you can get the same benefits by being outside it."

Mr. White said, "All the NSG countries, especially those who claim to take non-proliferation and disarmament seriously, must ensure that the US-India deal comply fully with international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation agreements, principles, and norms. Otherwise, it must be rejected."

He added, "The deal marks such a fundamental shift in the international non-proliferation regime that any decision to exempt India from the rules should be submitted for approval by all the countries of the NPT at their next Review Conference, in 2010."

The text of the working group's letter, along with a list of endorsing members and a list of NSG countries follows.

Contact:
Philip White, Coordinator of ABOLITION 2000's US-India Deal Working Group
c/- Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Tokyo, Japan
Tel: 81-3-3357-3800 Fax: 81-3-3357-3801
Email 1: white@cnic.jp Email 2: cnic@nifty.com
Working Group Web Site: http://cnic.jp/english/topics/plutonium/proliferation/usindia.html
----------------------------

Letter sent to heads of NSG governments on 14 August 2007
(First sentence of paragraph 3 reworded slightly for governments which are not currently represented on the IAEA Board of Governors)

Prime Minister ... / President ...

We write to you on behalf of ABOLITION 2000, a global network of over 2000 organizations in more than 90 countries working for a global treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons, to share our concern about the nuclear agreement that has been negotiated between the US and India. We hope that, like us, your government will consider the deal to be deeply flawed and reject it.

As you know, the United States and India recently finalized details of a proposed agreement that will exempt India from long-standing restrictions on nuclear trade. For this deal to proceed, India must negotiate a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the 45 member-states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) also must decide to grant India a special exemption from their rules governing nuclear trade.

Your government is represented on both the Board of Governors of the IAEA and on the NSG, so it is in a position of great responsibility. We urge you to ensure that there is no rush to judgment in the negotiation of a safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA or at the NSG. The goal of members states in both bodies should be to ensure that the US-India deal comply fully with current international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation agreements, principles, and norms.

In the case of the NSG, all 45 member countries have a power of veto over implementation of the US-India nuclear agreement. For the reasons outlined below we urge you to exercise that power. Furthermore, we believe that the deal is of such consequence for the international non-proliferation regime that the final decision on this matter should be made by the NPT parties at the next Review Conference, in 2010. The currently applicable consensus within the NPT framework is that countries should not receive nuclear assistance unless they have made "internationally legally binding commitments not to acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices". (See paragraph 12 of the 'Principles and objectives for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament' Decision 2, 1995 NPT Extension Conference). We urge you to make it clear that any effort to force a decision in the NSG prior to a new consensus among the NPT parties will be opposed by your government.

Background and Analysis

The text of the agreement (referred to as a "Section 123" agreement after the section in the US Atomic Energy Act) was released on 3 August 2007. Key features are an unusual arrangement for a dedicated reprocessing facility and U.S. fuel supply assurances to India. In both areas the proposed agreement grants preferential treatment to a non-NPT party. These attempts to finesse concerns about compliance with US law (the Atomic Energy Act and the Hyde Act) must not be allowed to blind the governments of other countries to the broader concerns discussed below.

Since its nuclear test in 1974, India has been subject to sanctions on trade in nuclear technology. After India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution (SC1172) condemning the tests. The "Section 123" agreement violates SC1172, which calls on India and Pakistan "immediately to stop their nuclear weapon development programs, to refrain from weaponization or from the deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons and any further production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. " The Resolution also "encourages all States to prevent the export of equipment, materials or technology that could in any way assist programs in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons." In the absence of India halting the production of fissile material for weapons, the supply of uranium to India by the international community for the reactors on its civilian list would still free up India's limited supply of indigenous reactor fuel for the sole purpose of fueling plutonium production reactors, thus indirectly assisting India's nuclear weapons program. (2)

The Section 123 agreement would allow for the transfer of sensitive reprocessing technology under certain circumstances. But the supply to India of equipment that may also be used in reprocessing, uranium enrichment, and heavy water production facilities risks that such equipment may be replicated and used in India's unsafeguarded nuclear weapons program. Such cooperation, if allowed by the NSG, could violate the original five Nuclear-Weapons States' NPT obligations under Article I of the NPT, which prohibits nuclear-weapon states from assisting non-nuclear-weapon states in any way to acquire nuclear weapons.

Despite developing and testing nuclear weapons outside the framework of the NPT, India is getting more favorable treatment than any NPT state with which the United States has a nuclear cooperation agreement. The Arms Control Association made the following comment in a Background Memo (3) issued in response to the August 3 release of the text of the "Section 123" agreement:

"The U.S.-India nuclear trade deal would grant India benefits not available to the non-nuclear weapon states parties to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty without even requiring it to meet all of the responsibilities expected of the five original nuclear-weapon states.
"For example, unlike China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, India has refused to sign the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and it has refused unilaterally to declare a halt to the production of fissile material for weapons -- as France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and United States have all done."

There is an immediate risk that the US-India nuclear agreement will fuel a nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan. Pakistan's National Command Authority (NCA), chaired by President Pervez Musharraf, has declared that "In view of the fact the [U.S.-India] agreement would enable India to produce a significant quantity of fissile material and nuclear weapons from unsafeguarded nuclear reactors, the NCA expressed firm resolve that our credible minimum deterrence requirements will be met." This suggests a South Asian fissile material race may be imminent.

Exempting India from international rules governing trade in nuclear technology threatens to undermine the nuclear non-proliferation order and thereby the prospects for global nuclear disarmament. Regardless of claims that the exemption will apply only to India, inevitably other nuclear proliferators will expect the same treatment. There is a danger that Pakistan, Israel and North-Korea, and possibly other countries in future, will see this as an opportunity for them to lay similar claims. For this and all the above reasons we urge you to reject this ill-conceived nuclear agreement.

Philip White, US-India Deal Working Group Coordinator
Steven Staples, Global Secretariat to Abolition 2000
14 August 2007

Notes and References

1. ABOLITION 2000's US-India Deal Working Group was established at ABOLITION 2000's Annual General Meeting held during the May 2007 NPT PrepCom in Vienna. ABOLITION 2000 lobbied governments at the NPT PrepCom.

2. Zia Mian, A.H. Nayyar, R. Rajaraman and M. V. Ramana, Fissile Materials in South Asia:The Implications of the US-India Nuclear Deal, International Panel on Fissile Materials, Research Report #1, 11 July 2006
http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/ipfmresearchreport01.pdf

3. Arms Control Association Background Memo, "U.S.-Indian Nuclear Agreement: A Bad Deal Gets Worse", August 3, 2007
http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2007/20070803_IndiaUS.asp

Endorsed by Members of Abolition 2000 US-India Deal Working Group

Lisa Clark (Italy), Beati i costruttori di pace (Blessed Are the Peacemakers) and Italian Disarmament Network

Beatrice Fihn (Sweden), Womens' International League for Peace and Freedom

Hamsa Genedy (Egypt), International Section, Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organization

Jim Green (Australia), Friends of the Earth Australia

Regina Hagen (Germany), International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation

Xanthe Hall (Germany), International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

John Hallam (Australia), People for Nuclear Disarmament NSW

David Heller (Belgium), Friends of the Earth Flanders & Brussels

Hidemichi Kano (Japan), Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs

Akira Kawasaki (Japan), Peace Boat

Daryl Kimball (USA), Arms Control Association

Ak Malten (The Netherlands), Global Anti-Nuclear Alliance

Nouri Abdul Razzak Hussain (Egypt), Secretary-General, Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organization

Sukla Sen (India), National Coordination Committee Member, Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace

Hari P. Sharma (Canada), Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Simon Fraser University and President, SANSAD (South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy)

Steven Staples (Canada), Director, Rideau Institute on International Affairs, Global Secretariat to Abolition 2000

Heinz Stockinger (Austria), PLAGE - Independent Platform Against Nuclear Dangers

Aaron Tovish (USA), International Manager, Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign International Secretariat

Philip White (Japan), Citizens' Nuclear Information Center

Working Group Contact Address:
c/- Citizens' Nuclear Information Center, Akebonobashi Co-op 2F-B, 8-5 Sumiyoshi-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-0065, Japan
Tel: 03-3357-3800 Fax: 03-3357-3801
http://cnic.jp/english/topics/plutonium/proliferation/usindia.html

------------------------------
List of countries which are represented on the NSG and the IAEA Board of Governors:
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, China, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America.

List of countries which are represented on the NSG, but not on the IAEA Board of Governors:
Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine

Czech mayors say US Missile Defence in Europe is fueling a new nuclear arms race

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:51:44 -0500

August 6th 2007 marks the 62nd anniversary of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima in which over 100,000 people lost their lives. Like every year, this occasion reminds us of the use of nuclear weapons. Tadatoshi Akiba, the mayor of Hiroshima, will once again make an appeal to the world for a global ban on nuclear weapons. An estimated 27,000 nuclear warheads still exist, more than enough to blow up the earth dozens of times.

These appeals remain as relevant as ever, especially in Europe where little progress is being made in moving towards a world without nuclear weapons. London announced its modernisation of the Trident nuclear weapon programme; Paris is testing a new M-51 nuclear missile; and the planned components of the American national missile defence system (NMD) in Poland and the Czech Republic, in addition to causing increasingly tense relations with the Russian Federation, contradict the move towards a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons, as agreed upon in Article VI of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The construction of the NMD is addressing the symptom – protection against a possible nuclear attack – rather than the root cause of the problem – the existence of nuclear weapons.

History teaches us that it is extremely difficult to cancel the development of military programs once the defence industry and the government are on board. Unfortunately, NATO’s recent decision (June 14th 2007) to limit its probe into the process of integrating the NMD with the European defence and security is a striking example of this. This position is problematic, given the many obvious weaknesses of the NMD.

Neither North Korea nor Iran have the capacity to launch an intercontinental nuclear missile attack on the US. If an attack does take place, it is far more likely to use trucks, boats or planes as delivery mechanisms, rather than intercontinental missiles. No NMD will provide protection against these low-tech attacks.
Secondly, the shaky NMD flight test record has led many to express serious doubt about its potential effectiveness and reliability. Contrary to normal development, and largely because of political pressure to show positive results, NMD is being tested under increasingly scripted and unrealistic circumstances. The most recent successful test, even under those highly simplified conditions, dates back to September 2006. Despite millions of dollars invested in the project, hardly any progress is being made. The American Congress recently decided to cut funding for the development of the European sites and make further funding conditional on a formal endorsement by NATO and successful conclusion of negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic. Opposition to the NMD installations is on the rise in both Poland and the Czech republic. Over the past months, a series of referenda have been organised by several mayors in the Czech Republic. All of these have revealed a strong rejection of the system by the local population.

Third, the mere development of the system, incomplete as it may be, is already provoking a series of highly negative reactions. The strategic balance based on the doctrine of the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is being destabilized. Even a system not aimed against the Russian Federation or China, weakens their capacity to respond to a first strike by the US. Few observers were surprised, therefore, when the Russian Under Secretary of Defence announced last May that Russia had tested a new intercontinental missile capable of circumventing any existing or future missile defence system. Similar efforts to adapt one’s nuclear arsenal may be expected from China.

The risk of a new arms race is aggravated by the fact that the international non-proliferation and arms control regime has been continuously weakened during the development of the Missile Defence System. In 2002, the US retreated from the ABM Treaty to allow precisely the development of the Missile Defence System. On July 14th, Russia notified NATO that it will suspend its application of the CFE Treaty. The current START agreement expires in 2009, and current tense relations between the US and Russia can be expected to compromise the chances of finding agreement on renewal or replacement.

The EU and NATO, as organisations owing their existence to the principle of collective security for their member states, are weakened as well by the current exchange. The US decision to pursue direct negotiation with the Polish and Czech governments rather than multilateral negotiations through the EU or NATO, has effectively sidelined these institutions. In addition, the NMD implies a purely military approach to the security issue, and as such is contrary to the traditional European approach in which diplomatic negotiations, multilateralism and positive confidence-building measures play a central part. The absence of a stronger signal from within the EU is hard to understand. NATO has recently become more active, but continues to ignore the essence by refusing to ask the ultimate question about the actual need for the US NMD installations in Europe, limiting itself to a short-sighted policy of damage control through participation in the American system under American political control.

The NMD thus appears to be a system of doubtful technical capability and reliability, which stands in stark contrast to such confirmed consequences as increased international tensions, weakened multilateral fora as well as obsolete international arm control agreements.

We urge all European states to play active roles in the debate. Our government needs to stand firm and convince its partners within NATO and the EU to oppose the deployment of the Missile Defence System in Eastern Europe. The only way to address nuclear insecurity is through an international regime that makes no room for weapons of mass destruction. Such a regime exists already with regard to biological and chemical weapons. We call on our country to show political courage and leadership and put a similar ban on nuclear weapons on the international agenda. This is not a matter of choice. It is a legal obligation, confirmed as such by the International Court of Justice in its ruling of July 8th 1996, based on article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Signed

Josef Hála, mayor van Jince , Czech Republic
Jan Neoral, mayor van Trokavec, Czech Republic
Luc Dehaene, mayor Vredesstad Ypres, Belgium
Pol D'Huyvetter & Arnaud Ghys, coordinators Abolition 2000 Belgium
Dr. Jef De Loof, Artsen voor Vrede (IPPNW)
Guy Magnus, Artsen voor Milieu en Maatschappij
David Heller, Friends of the Earth
Michel Vanhoorne, LEF
Carla Goffi, Mouvement Chrétien pour la Paix
Tim Bogaert, Pax Christi Vlaanderen
Pol De Vos, Stop USA
Hans Lammerant, Vredesactie
Ludo De Brabander, Vrede vzw
Prof. Henri Firket, Association Médicale pour la Prévention d'une Guerre Nucléaire (IPPNW)
Roland Antoine, Coordination luxembourgeois pour la paix
Jean-Pierre Brouhon, Hiroshima mon Souvenir
Thierry Delannoy, MIR-IRG
Katheline Toumpsin, Pax Christi Wallonie-Bruxelles

AXA disinvests (partly) from landmines and cluster munitions

Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:47:26 -0500

In a press release AXA announes to pull out investments of companies that produce anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. This is surprising good news from the Paris headquarters of this bank-insurance company. For last years AXA has shown heavy reluctance to adopt stricter weapon investment policies.

One step ahead
The decision by Axa to disinvest from anti-personnel mines dates from 2006. AXA claims to have fully implemented this policy now. Disinvesting from cluster munition producers is a new move in the AXA investment policy. The group refers to the emerging international consensus around a ban on cluster bombs and to the ‘Oslo process’. This initiative by Norway already managed to get more than seventy countries working on an international treaty against cluster munitions.

Campaigns are successful
The campaign ‘My Money. Clear Conscience?’ by Netwerk Vlaanderen, Vrede, Vredesactie and Friends of the Earth Flanders & Brussels has now managed to convince all five most prominent banks in Belgium to disinvest from anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. But not merely Belgian organisations raised the pressure on AXA. In 2006 the Netwerk Vlaanderen report ‘Explosive Portfolio’s’ revealed that AXA invested more than US$ 5.5 billion in thirteen producers of cluster munitions. This was the sign for Amnesty International FR and Handicap International FR to start campaigning against these investments. In March 2007 both NGO’s even decided to break up their insurance contracts with AXA.

Limited responsibility
This new policy by Axa is an important step ahead. But AXA still doesn’t take its full responsibility. This exclusion policy only covers AXA’s direct investments. The general account insurance assets, including the invested insurance premiums, will no longer be invested in producers of anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. But an investor buying shares of an AXA investment fund has no reason to be at ease. Such investments ‘on behalf of third parties’ are not covered by the new policy. Through AXA investment funds investments in producers like Lockheed Martin, ATK and Raytheon will go on. And this is not a minor exception. In 2006 52% of AXA’s € 1,315 billion assets under management were ‘on behalf of third parties. So the new policy merely covers half of AXA’s investments.

Transparency needed
Above that there is still a lack of transparency at AXA. The group just states it’s policy on anti personnel mines is fully implemented. But no information on the identified and excluded companies is published. Axa claims to use independent experts to assist in identifying producers. But a public ‘black list’ is needed to be able to fully assess and control AXA’s new policy.

Anti-nuclear activists open “uranium mine” in front of Belgian Christian Democratic Party headquarters

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:12:13 -0500

Report shows environmental and human rights consequences of uranium mining for Belgian nuclear power stations.

Photos of the action (free of copyright): http://fme.sincerethought.org/gallery/v/2007/umining2

Friday 6th July, Brussels – Activists from Friends of the Earth today constructed a “uranium mine” in front of the head offices of the Christian Democratic party (CD&V) on the Wetstraat in Brussels. The action coincided with the release a significant research report showing the tragic environmental and human rights impacts of the uranium mining that supplies the nuclear fuels for the Belgian nuclear power plants of Doel and Tihange.[1]

The problems associated with uranium mining include massive levels of radioactive contamination, an increase in cancers and other health problems amongst mine workers and residents of the surrounding areas, and a widespread culture of misinformation and secrecy within the industry. The report shows that it is often indigenous people who have felt the greatest impacts of uranium mining.

The report traces the origin of the uranium used in Belgian nuclear power plants [2], and produces the first-ever comprehensive overview of these largely hidden, but very direct, consequences of the Belgian dependence upon nuclear power. The report adds extra pressure to maintain, and even speed up, the phase out of nuclear power in Belgium, in the context of the ongoing negotiations to form a new federal government.

Koen Cornelis of Friends of the Earth stated: “When someone in Belgium turns on a light or a television, the majority of the electricity comes from nuclear power. The uranium mining to provide the fuel for Doel and Tihange have created widespread human rights and environmental problems around the world. Our research shows that nuclear power is anything but clean energy. If you read the eyewitness accounts contained in our report, you cannot fail to be convinced that we have to end the use of nuclear power immediately.”

The release of the report was marked with a nonviolent direct action, in which activists constructed a “uranium mine” at the head office of the CD&V in Brussels. The activists, dressed in mining clothing, created a number of holes in the pavement in front of the building, and held banners reading “Uranium voor België Creeert Duurzame Vervuiling”, “leave uranium in the ground” and “kernenergie gaat over lijken”. A sound system played the noise of drilling in a “noise bombardment” of the offices.

Koen Cornelis, of Friends of the Earth, stated: “The planned increase in nuclear power worldwide is leading to an increase in the price of uranium, which is in turn fuelling a boom in uranium mining. In many cases, mining companies are returning to areas that were mined decades ago, and have still not been cleaned up. If the CD&V find this action inconvenient, they should try to imagine what it is like to live next to a real uranium mine.”

Press Contact: Koen Cornelis
Email: koenc@moederaarde.be
GSM: 0472 342 463

[1] The report “Uraniumontginning voor de Belgische kerncentrales: Impact op Mens en Milieu”, an executive summary of the report, as well as high resolution photographs of the impacts of uranium mining, will be available online from Friday 6th July at: http://www.motherearth.org/uranium

[2] The countries supplying uranium to Belgium include:
Australië, Canada, China, Kazakhstan, Rusland, Zuid-Afrika en de VS.
This list comes from the answer to a parliamentary question, which is published at: http://www.motherearth.org/uranium/pq.pdf

BNP-Paribas, Stop funding nuclear power!

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:37:10 -0500

Europe-wide protests against bank's funding for dangerous Belene nuclear plant

Brussels 5th June - In Brussels today and in over 20 cities across Europe, protests by environmental groups intensified pressure on BNP Paribas to withdraw its funding of the controversial Belene Buglarian nuclear power plant.

In Brussels, activists from Friends of the Earth Europe, Netwerk Vlaanderen, Reseau financement alternatif and Friends of the Earth Flanders and Brussels gathered outside the BNP Paribas office dressed in radiation suits, declaring the bank "radioactively contaminated". Click for free, print quality photo (credit: Lode Sadaine/FoEE)

Daniel Meijers, Anti-nuclear campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said:
"It is completely irresponsible of BNP Paribas to fund the Belene nuclear power plant in Bulgaria. The site is at high risk of earthquakes and the reactors haven't even been properly tested. Investment in Belene could be investment in the next Chernobyl disaster."

The Belene Nuclear Power Plant is situated in northern Bulgaria, close to the Romanian border in an area at high risk of earthquakes. During the last large earthquake in 1977, 120 people died just 14 km from the project site.

The nuclear project was abandoned in the 1990s following a scientific assessment that warned that the area was not suitable for a nuclear reactor. The Bulgarian Cabinet deemed Belene to be "technically unsafe and economically not viable". However, the Bulgarian government reversed this decision, announcing in 2003 that they would restart the project. [1]

The specific reactors planned are of a Russian design which has not been through full safety testing and has never before been built in Europe.

On 14 May this year, BNP Paribas won the tender for a 250 million Euro loan to the Bulgarian electricity company NEK, to finance the first stage of planning and construction of Belene. [2] Eleven other international banks have refused to finance the project, including UniCredit, Deutsche Bank [3], KBC, Commerzbank, Societe General, Citibank and Credit Suisse.

Click for free, print quality photo (credit: Lode Sadaine/FoEE)

Today a representative of the Brussels BNP Paribas office was presented with a letter demanding that BNP Paribas withdraws all investment and capital from the Belene project. [4]

Click photos for free, print quality photo (credit: Lode Sadaine/FoEE)

***

For more information, please contact:

Daniel Meijers, Anti-nuclear campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe: Mobile: +32 497 451982,
email: daniel.meijers@foeeurope.org (Languages: English, Dutch)

Inez Louwagie, Campaigner at Netwerk Vlaanderen: Mobile: +32 498 682 940; email:
inez.louwagie@netwerk-vlaanderen.be (Languages: English, Dutch)

Rosemary Hall, Communications Officer at Friends of the Earth Europe: Mobile: +32 485 930515,
email: rosemary.hall@foeeurope.org (Languages: English)

NOTES

[1] Timeline of events: http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/Belene.chronology.pdf

[2]http://news.dnevnik.bg/?y=2007&m=5&d=15

http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=6104484&subject=companies&action=article

In an official response, BNP Paribas has confirmed its 250 million Euro loan to NEK, and has confirmed that it will consider further financing of Belene's construction in the future.

[3] http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/joint_20_Oct_Bulgaria_nuclear_plant.htm

[4] http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/NGO_Letter_BNP_Paribas_050607.pdf

Friends of the Earth Europe campaigns for sustainable and fair societies and for the protection of the environment,
unites more than 30 national organisations with thousands of local groups
and is part of the world's largest grassroots environmental network, Friends of the Earth International.

A Modern Plague: 'The Human Cost of Uranium Weapons' Photo exhibition in the European Parliament, 14th to 16th May 2007

Wed, 16 May 2007 19:50:08 -0500

Els Van Weert (Dutch Green/EFA MEP)- Brussels, May 2007.

Together with the International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW – www.bandepleteduranium.org) and British MEP Dr Caroline Lucas, I organised an exhibition and conference about the use of weapons containing depleted uranium (DU).

Women in Iraq are scared to get pregnant, because their children may be born with congenital malformations or may subsequently develop childhood leukaemia; a rare form of cancer in the developed West. Children with bumpy skulls and swollen necks and bellies gazed out from the photographs by the Japanese photographer Naomi Toyoda, who exhibited his work in the European Parliament earlier this month.

We saw photos of babies with crooked legs, and pictures of hospitalised older children in their deathbeds, sometimes smiling, in spite of all. Another photo showed the special graveyard for children in the southern town of Basra: a vast plain with cheap small tombstones. Elsewhere a man was sitting on the ruins of his house, his face etched in despair, another victim of ‘collateral damage’. In a busy street nearby lay the remains of a tank destroyed by DU, its hulk contaminated by radioactive and toxic dust; passers-by brush past it and children play in and on it.

The 2003 war in Iraq is different from traditional wars in two ways: it was played out in the midst of large civilian populations and, for the second time in Iraq’s history, DU nuclear waste was used as a weapon. Following the 1991 and 2003 invasions, 70% of Iraq is contaminated with uranium dust. It is in the vegetation, rivers, groundwater, and in humans and animals. It covers roads, fields and houses. Hundreds of tonnes of nuclear waste are spread as dust over Iraq.

DU is waste from the nuclear enrichment process. It is what is left over once the isotope uranium 235 is removed for use in nuclear power plants. DU is radioactive, extremely poisonous and expensive to store – there are more than 500,000 tonnes of it worldwide. Consequently it is very cheap for arms manufacturers to buy. Its high density makes it an attractive choice for use in armour-piercing weapons.

When the penetrator dart from a DU shell hits a hard target, it ignites and burns at temperatures in excess of 3000⁰C. These high temperatures create a cloud of soluble and insoluble uranium oxide particles, which can easily be inhaled. The soluble oxides can dissolve into the bloodstream affecting the whole body, while the insoluble particles lodge in the lungs, irradiating the lung cells before being transported to the lymph nodes and beyond.

Iraq has seen an alarming increase in the incidence rate of cancers following the 1991 Gulf War. Military personnel have also been affected, with many suffering a wide range of symptoms relating to their exposure to DU. Other personnel have fathered deformed children. This happened to Gerard Matthew, a US Iraq veteran, who suffered from incredible migraines and dozens of other symptoms. His little daughter Victoria, who was conceived while he was on leave, is missing three fingers on her hand. Gerard himself is ill, but was nevertheless in the Parliament to tell his story.

In the meantime there are many Gerards! Military reports mention genetic defects in the chromosomes of veterans who served in the Gulf, Bosnia and Kosovo. As bearers of DU contamination they are permanently exposed to the radioactive and toxic effects of DU, which destroys their tissues and threatens the health of their offspring. There are more veterans with misshapen children. But until recently, the military authorities disregarded the concerns of activists and scientists and did not even warn their own personnel. Maybe Iraq is too dangerous a place for Prince Harry because of DU.

The American toxicologist Dr. Thomas Fasy, and his colleagues in the UK, have been investigating DU contamination for years and are capable of identifying the precise isotopic footprint of DU, even many years after exposure. The connection between contamination and syndrome can be determined exactly.

That is why it was good that apart from Naomi and Gerard, the President of EUROMIL, Europe's largest military trade union, Emmanuel Jacob, also came to the EP. He is against the use of DU because it endangers both civilians and his own personnel. Many European countries allow military personnel to organise in trade unions, however this is not the case in the UK and the US. Meanwhile it is suspected that US A10 Warthog aircraft continue to use DU in Afghanistan exposing civilians and NATO troops to further contamination.

In addition to the four DU specialists from Japan and the USA, Dr. Jawad Al-Ali from Iraq also came to Brussels. Dr. Al-Ali is the director of the Cancer Centre at Basra Teaching Hospital. Since the first Gulf War in 1991, he has studied the effects of DU contamination.

He is fighting daily against death in a sectarian conflict, and the short supply of medicines and basic equipment. He may even be contaminated himself, in both his kidneys. To get a visa he had to travel to Jordan where he was interrogated for five hours by the secret service about the aim of his trip. Any Iraqi doctors and researchers who stay in their country are suspect, as their testimonies do not please the military and political powers. Like mopping at an open tap, doctors like Dr Ali continue to battle against overwhelming odds to care for their patients. The world needs people like Dr. Al-Ali, and he has been decorated on various occasions.

As co-host of this conference, I gave a statement to Belgian TV in which I welcomed and respected Belgium’s decision to ban uranium weapons. The Greens, who co-financed this exhibition and conference appealed to other countries to follow in Belgium’s footsteps.

The half-life of DU is 4,5 billion years. It is a criminal act that parts of the world: Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo and perhaps Afghanistan, have been rendered uninhabitable for centuries, and that little information has been provided to the civilian population and military personnel about the dangers of DU weapons. Even now, the trade in contaminated scrap metal from Iraq to Jordan and Syria threatens to spread the contamination beyond Iraq’s borders, just as the regular sandstorms do.

The following Green MEP's, and a substantial contribution of the Green Party, made this exhibition and conference financially possible: Margrete Auken (DK), Angelika Beer (D), Marie Anne Isler Beguin (F), Jill Evans (UK), Monica Frassoni (I), Els de Groen (NL), Rebecca Harms (D), Satu Hassi (SF), Gisela Kallenbach (D), Sepp Kusstatscher (I), Jean Lambert (UK), Caroline Lucas (UK) and Bart Staes (B).