The nuclear question
p. 52 · Read in the full issue
NUCLEAR testing or the resumption of it, is once again making the headlines.
After dominating regional politics in the South Pacific for over two decades, the issue was given a breather when two leading nuclear weapons nations de cided to halt testing.
France’s unilateral moratorium on its nuclear testing program in the South Pacific in April last year was particularly welcomed.
Then US President George Bush announced later his country, too, would suspend its nuclear testing program.
Both countries attach one condition to their voluntary decisions the suspen sion would remain intact only if other nuclear powers follow their lead.
South Pacific Forum leaders who have been campaigning relentlessly against nuclear testing, especially the use of their backyard to test this weapon of mass
destruction, quickly commended France, but at the same time, urged it to extend the suspension indefinitely.
In a communique issued after last year’s South Pacific Forum the Leaders stated “The decision of the French government to suspend nuclear testing in 1992 was warmly welcomed. Forum countries have consistently called on France to cease it nuclear testing in the Pacific region and commended French recognition of the sensitivities of Forum members on this issue.
“Indefinite extension of the French ceassation of nuclear tests will contribute significantly to improving further the relations between France and the countries of the Pacific.”
Forum Leaders wrote to the President of France urging him to suspend his country’s nuclear testing indefinitely. The communique continued “The Forum expressed the strong hope that his would lead to the permanent cessation of nuclear testing in the South Pacific, which would remove once and for all a major stumbling block in the relations between the countries of the region and France.”
The appeal by Forum leaders to France to stop its nuclear testing program did not stop there. The Forum indeed urged other nuclear weapons states “to follow the lead given by France and Russia by suspending their nuclear testing with a view to banning all nuclear testing in all environments for all time. In this regard the Forum sent strong messages to the world’s nuclear powers urging the indefinite suspension of nuclear testing.”
So far the campaign to resume nuclear testing appear to have been orchestrated by top officials of the Defence establishments in Paris and Washington. The head of France’s Atomic Energy Commission Philippo Rouvillois was quoted as saying his country’s year-long moratorium should be lifted as the arsenal’s effectiveness is at stake. France, he said, needs to keep a competitive edge against the US and Russia.
US under secretary of defence, John Deutch, appearing before a Congressional Committee, told of his department’s support for an early resumption of nuclear testing. The US moratorium on nuclear testing ends next month. Deutch said the aim is to ensure the US has a safe, secure, reliable and an effective nuclear deterrent. In the face of a massive military downsizing, especially in the United States, such
sentiments are understandable. After all, there are mortgages to pay, bills to settle and yes, food for the kiddies, so the nuclear industry becomes handy to provide employment.
Indeed, there is no question about the right of countries to exercise their prerogative on matters of national security and interests. But there is another side to this argument - the rights of the untold millions the world over opposed to the development and use of nuclear weapons.
The South Pacific is home to some 26 million people, including some who inhabit the atolls and archipel agos of the region. Mururoa Atoll, for instance, has been subjected to heavy bombardment for over 26 years by France’s nuclear testing. At stake are the lives of inhabitants, their children and those of generations to come.
Short term gains in employment the nuclear industry provide does not substitute for long-term effects and scars confronting the inhabitants of the region. Even the environment is subjected to harm.
In other words, peaceful co-existence as a long-term consideration, far outweighs any other considerations, military or otherwise.
There is no doubt the new government in France will come under increasing pressure from its military top brass to lift its moratorium. Equal pressure is coming from the French public for the government in Paris to put an end to the testing, as shown in a recent survey there. I'here will also be mounting pressure from the region’s politicians, environmentalists and others on France to accommodate the region’s sensitivities on the issue.
There is a flicker of hope that recognition of the Forum’s sensitivities on this issue by France and the thawing of relations between it and the Forum may just persuade French President Mitterand to decide against lifting the ban.
As far as the US is concerned, it will be a question of conscience - whether the push by some military hardliners to resume nuclear testing sits well with US policy on non proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Judging from the initial reactions to these reports, there is little doubt that the nuclear testing or the resumption of it, will once again become the buzz word in the corridors of power in the South Pacific as well as in the campaign strategy rooms of organisations such as Greenpeace. It is the one issue, at least in the South Pacific, governments and environmentalists openly opposed together. Why? So the world’s estimated 5.5 billion people can live without fear of an accidental or otherwise, nuclear attack.
According to published reports, some 44 atmospheric tests and 130 underground ones had taken place in the South Pacific. When the counts in the US, Russia, Britain and others are taken into account, the catalogue is guaranteed to
be long.
For now, the question that will continue to be churned in the minds of politicians, environmentalists and the peace loving people of the region will be Will France and the US resume nuclear testing, or will they have the resolve and the leadership to say no, making the world a safer place for all of us?