Mordechai Vanunu on trial again ???!!!
I have been in contact with Mordechai Vanunu over the past year via email. Correspondance suddenly stopped and now I hear that he appears to be on trial again. His most recent email is below, and another is on my blog at
http://knotundone.blogspot.com/2005/11/vanuna-re-arrested-again-and-released.html
Vanunu evidently could benefit from some media attention, if the Israelis are indeed trying to confine him again on spying charges. Can anyone assist in getting him some much needed public attention and support? His email is: vmjc1954(at) gmail.com
Interesting developments in the UK on the nuclear front. It now transpires that British elements secretly and illegally supplied Israel with some of the plutonium they needed to develop their illicit nuclear weapon. This was back in the 1960s, and the revelation is only emerging now . This is important timing, considering that Blair is presently pushing for new nuclear reactors, to allegedly solve the UK's reliance on foreign energy sources, among other excuses, and that the US and Canada are both moving in the same direction. Articles follow.
Then there's the threatening gestures being levelled at Iran, over their desire for the very same thing everyone else seems to have. Personally, I'm opposed to all nuclear technology and weapons, regardless of which country is in possession of it. No-one has any solutions in terms of how to dispose of the waste, and it's caused untold grief and sickness in the countries it's been deployed against (atom bombs, and *depleted uranium- -- radioactive waste left over from nuclear bombs and reactors, used as a weapon in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere ),
* see this article- http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:NRT2KadTyewJ:feedthefish.org/blog/materials/johnson.html+plutonium++sickness+afghanistan&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3&ie=UTF-8) ,
not to mention the fallout from "mere" accidents, such as Three Mile Island and Cherynobal. The presence of these reactors are too convenient a target for terrorist organizations- many are located near large cities, and the civilian death toll would be unimaginable in the event of an attack.
From : vmjc vmjc1954@gmail.com
Sent : February 23, 2006 4:14:29 AM
To : 1vmjc
Subject : Trial,court Feb'22nd'.
to all those who did not receive this report.
Hi,Friends,Supporters.
Today the trial continue at 13:00, in the same court
in Jerusalem. Mr Feldman could not come to the
hearing so there was only Mr Michael Sfard as my
lawyer.
Few supporters were with me in the court, Jerry Levin
was there plus three from Norway and one from Belgium.
No press or any media people.
First, the judge Mr Yoel Zur, already this week gave a
decision that the court will not accept all the
evidence from the Internet and from 'Internet Chats'
taken without any authority from my computer by the
police.
Sfard cross examined the police man Peterburg, who
interrogated me months ago in the police offices,
about his methods especially with going through my
computers to see my emails and chats, and going to
court to ask for my arrest, and search my room.
Sfard prove to the court according to the police
documents, they asked Microsoft to give them details
of my Hotmail account, my passwords, and the IP
address. All this was after the police went to the
court , asking the judge the right to go to my emails.
Microsoft obeyed these orders and gave them all the
details, but not the Passwords. This took place on
Aug. 12th 2004. Three months before arresting me and
taking my computers. Sfard pointed out that it is
strange to ask Microsoft to give this information if
they don't have the court's order to listen to my
private conversations. It means they wanted to go to
my emails in secret or may be by they help the
secret services, the Shaback,Mossad. not as the police
stated, by Peterburg, that he did go to my email
account and all his material came only from my
computer.
More important revelation was, that the police each
time went to the court claiming that I am being
suspected with spying activity. Not just not
following the restrictions. So Mr Sfard wants the
police to tell the court what kind of espionage was I
involved with. The police man did not have any
answers and said that he brought all the evidence to
the court. When Sfard asked again Pterburg about any
material related to the 'espionage' Peterburg had no
answers.
So Sfard prove that the police had mislead the judges
who gave orders to arrest me, to search my room, to go
to my email, confiscate my computers (for almost a
year), and also mislead Microsoft to believe they are
helping in the case of espionage, other wise Microsoft
would not have cooperated with such orders.
It also revealed they have two Gov ministers orders,of keeping secrets documents {Hisaion},one by interior Security minister,one by defence minister,about what? we don't know,one thing is the secret cooperation ,work between the police and Shaback ,Mossad.
All this case, interrogations, arrests, confiscations
of private properties and more, all done from the the
start under the falls and misleading statements to the
courts of 'suspicion of espionage', and yet they are
not charging me with spy crimes.
{All these issues should had been raised in the early
testimony of the police man by Feldman.}
The judge also asked questions. He wants to know what
the police said to the judges when they asked all
these orders, how the proceedings been conducted,
then.
Peterburg most of the time said he does not remember.
It looked like he did not want to answer a lot of
questions.
The prosecutor wants the court to have the tapes,
where they video me in secret when I was interrogated
by the police in their offices.
The court decided to give time until May 1st, for each
side to write their arguments for and against " No
case to answer" .
That was it for today.
Please anyone who could suggest prominent names who
could testify on the subject of freedom of expression
and hopefully could come to testify or write on the
matter etc. Any ideas or help in this matter my right
of freedom of speech and that I have not committed any
crimes, include donation for legal expenses would be very welcome.
Thank You
vmjc
--
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4789832.stm >
Secret sale of UK plutonium to Israel
By Meirion Jones
BBC Newsnight
The UK supplied Israel with quantities of plutonium while Harold Wilson was prime minister, BBC Newsnight can reveal.
The sale was made despite a warning from British intelligence that it might "make a material contribution to an Israeli weapons programme".
Under Wilson, Britain also sold Israel tons of chemicals used to make boosted atom bombs 20 times more powerful than Hiroshima or even Hydrogen Bombs.
In Harold Macmillan's time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production plant at Dimona - heavy water which British intelligence estimated would allow Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".
All export licensing of materials associated with civil nuclear programmes went through stringent checks across Whitehall
Foreign Office
Last August on BBC Newsnight we revealed the first British/Israeli deal, the sale of the heavy water, but the government responded by telling the International Atomic Energy Agency the UK was not a party to any sale to Israel and that all it did was sell some heavy water back to Norway.
Hundreds of shipments
Using Freedom of Information, Newsnight has obtained top secret papers. They show Foreign Minister Kim Howells misled the IAEA and that Britain made not one, but hundreds of secret shipments of nuclear materials to Israel.
Tony Benn, who was Minister of Technology in 1966, is shocked to learn of the sales
Tony Benn became Minister of Technology in 1966 while the plutonium deal was going through. The nuclear industry was part of his "white heat of technology" brief but no one told him that we were exporting atomic energy materials to Israel.
"I'm not only surprised, I'm shocked," he says, adding that neither he nor his predecessor Frank Cousins, who was a member of CND, agreed to the sales.
Benn says he always suspected civil servants were doing deals behind his back but he never thought they would sell plutonium to Israel. "It never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government."
Dimona
Back in August 1960 covertly taken photos of a mysterious site at Dimona in Israel arrived at Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) in Whitehall. A brilliant analyst called Peter Kelly immediately realized they showed a secret nuclear reactor and he alerted the rest of British intelligence.
Kelly recognized it was a French reactor and soon discovered where the heavy water to run it had come from.
Selling plutonium to Israel was against UK government policy
Britain had bought heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Norway for its nuclear weapons programme but found it was surplus to requirements and needed a buyer. The papers obtained by Newsnight show that a company called Noratom acted as a consultant and arranged the deals in return for a 2% commission.
Britain knew all along that Israel wanted the heavy water "to produce plutonium" and Israel paid the full military price - £1 million - to avoid safeguards to stop the plutonium being used to make nuclear weapons.
Kelly discovered a charade was played out with the UK and Israeli delegations sitting in adjacent rooms while Noratom ferried separate contracts to and fro so Britain could say they hadn't signed a deal with Israel.
Once the press heard about Dimona in December 1960 there was an international outcry. Israel put out a cover story that it was a small research reactor. This did not fool Kelly. Using the figure of 20 tons of heavy water he estimated that Israel could build a reactor capable of producing "significant quantities of plutonium".
Michael Crick has used Freedom of Information to obtain secret papers
British intelligence learnt there was also a reprocessing plant and concluded "the separation of plutonium can only mean that Israel intends to produce nuclear weapons". Kelly even discovered that an Israeli observer had been allowed to watch one of the first French nuclear tests in Algeria.
Kelly and his colleagues in intelligence soon found their views about Israel were being challenged by Britain's representative at the IAEA Mike Michaels, who worked for one of the main figures in Harold Macmillan's Cabinet - Lord Hailsham.
Michaels received a JIC report early in 1961 estimating Israel would take at least three years to make enough plutonium and then another six months to work out how to make a bomb.
But it occurred to him that a friendly power might give Israel a small sample of plutonium to speed up the process. "Perhaps the French have supplied a small quantity for experimental purposes as we did to the French in like circumstances some years ago," he noted in the margin of the report. A few years later Michaels persuaded the UK to sell Israel a small sample of plutonium when he was aware - as this note shows - that this might cut months off the time it took them to get the Bomb.
Invitation
The Israeli nuclear chief, Ernst David Bergmann, personally invited Michaels to Israel. Kelly warned Israel might use Michaels as part of a disinformation campaign to show "everything is above board". Michaels was given VIP treatment. He met not only Bergmann but Shimon Peres and Prime Minister David Ben Gurion - the three fathers of the Israeli Bomb.
As Kelly suspected, Michaels' report gave Israel the all clear and he handed it to Hailsham at a crucial time, two days before Ben Gurion met Harold Macmillan at Downing Street.
Tony Benn thinks it inconceivable that Harold Wilson knew of atomic exports to Israel
In 1962 the Dimona reactor started turning uranium into plutonium, thanks to the heavy water Britain had delivered, but Michaels continued to protest Israel's innocence.
Then at the beginning of 1966 UK Atomic Energy Authority made what they remarkably called a "pretty harmless request". They wanted to export 10 milligrammes of plutonium to Israel. The MoD strongly objected and Defence Intelligence wrote directly to say the sale might have "significant military value".
The Foreign Office told UKAEA "It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons" and therefore they blocked the sale.
Sale
Michaels wrote angrily "to protest strongly" against the decision. Five years earlier he had noted such a sale could speed up the Israeli bomb programme, now he was powerfully advocating just that. He said small quantities of plutonium were not important and anyhow if we didn't sell it to the Israelis someone else would. The Foreign Office gave in and the sale went ahead. Kelly believes Mike Michaels knew all along that Israel was after the Bomb. He died in 1992.
Tony Benn is incredulous that Michaels never referred the Israeli nuclear sales to him or Frank Cousins. They were after all the ministers in charge of Britain's nuclear industry including imports and exports. "Michaels lied to me. I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again".
The atomic files, which have been classified until now, detail hundreds of nuclear deals with Israel flagged up as sensitive.
Benn's initial reaction to whether Harold Wilson knew about atomic exports to Israel was "it's inconceivable". Then he muses: "Harold was sympathetic to Israel," before concluding that this was probably a conspiracy by civil servants and the nuclear industry to flout HMG policy.
This report was shown on Newsnight on Thursday, 9 March, 2006.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article349711.ece
Plan for new nuclear programme approaches meltdown after report
By Michael Harrison, and Michael McCarthy
Published: 07 March 2006
Tony Blair's backing for nuclear power suffered a blow yesterday when the Government's own advisory body on sustainable development came down firmly against the building of a new generation of reactors.
Despite the Prime Minister's well-known support for the nuclear industry, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) concluded that a new nuclear programme was not the answer to the twin challenges of climate change and security of supply. In a hard-hitting report, the 15-strong Commission identified five "major disadvantages" to nuclear power:
* The lack of a long-term strategy for dealing with highly toxic nuclear waste
* Uncertainty over the cost of new nuclear stations and the risk that taxpayers would be left to pick up the tab;
* The danger that going down the nuclear route would lock the UK into a centralised system for distributing energy for the next 50 years;
* The risk a new nuclear programme would undermine efforts to improve energy efficiency;
* The threat of terrorist attacks and radiation exposure if other countries with lower safety standards also opt for nuclear.
Nuclear power generates 20 per cent of the UK's electricity but, by 2020, that will have shrunk to 7 per cent and, by 2035, the last of the current generation of stations will have closed, potentially leaving the UK highly dependent on imported gas.
But instead of sanctioning a new nuclear programme, the SDC urged Mr Blair to back a further expansion of renewable power, fresh measures to promote energy efficiency and the development of new technologies such as "carbon capture" to tackle the environmental threat posed by fossil-fuelled stations.
The commission's report comes just three months before the Government publishes the results of its latest energy review, which is widely expected to pave the wave for a new generation of nuclear stations.
Sir Jonathon Porritt, the chairman of the commission, said:"Instead of hurtling along to a pre-judged conclusion (which many fear the Government is intent on doing) we must look to the evidence. There's little point in denying that nuclear power has its benefits but, in our view, these are outweighed by serious disadvantages. The Government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix to our climate change and energy crises - there simply isn't one."
The commission said that even if the UK's existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only lead to an 8 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels. By contrast, renewable energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and biomass, which are zero-carbon sources of energy, could supply 68-87 per cent of the country's electricity needs if fully exploited.
Sir Jonathon added that opting for the "big-bang fix" of a new nuclear programme would jeopardise public-sector support for renewable power. It would also undermine efforts to improve energy efficiency, which the report estimates could reduce UK energy demand by as much as 30 to 40 per cent and cut carbon emissions by 20 million tons a year - equivalent to the output of 27 power stations.
Sir Jonathon said, that among the commission's 15 members, eight had come down against nuclear power, five had concluded it was not yet time for a new programme and two had said there was "maybe" a case for more reactors. He also took a sideswipe at other well-known environmentalists such as James Lovelock who backs nuclear power. "No one person should be accorded that over-arching credibility in the face of the evidence before us," he said.
The environmental pressure groups Friends of the Earth welcomed the commission's findings. Its director, Tony Juniper, said: "Tony Blair and his Government must now seize the historic opportunity presented by the energy review to set the UK on course to becoming a world leader in developing a low-carbon, nuclear free economy."
The Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, who is leading the review, gave a guarded reaction, saying: "As the commission itself finds, this is not a black and white issue. It does, however, agree that it is right we are assessing the potential contribution of new nuclear."
Philip Dewhurst, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, voiced his "disappointment" at the report's findings but said he was pleased that the commission had confirmed nuclear as a low carbon source of energy, recognised its improved safety record and only voted by 8-7 to rule out new reactors.
Meanwhile, London's Mayor Ken Livingstone unveiled plans to revolutionise the capital's energy supply system to fight climate change. London is to spend many millions of pounds "decentralising" its electricity supplies - switching from giant power stations to much smaller units, generating power locally - by joining forces with the energy multi-national EDF to develop local electricity generating sites and networks across the capital. The commission's report warns that this is just the kind of development that would be compromised if the UK went down the nuclear route.
The five key objections
Waste
No long-term solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste, such as the spent fuel from atomic power stations, are yet available, let alone acceptable to the public, the report says. Nuclear waste is dangerous, hard to manage, and long-lasting in its effects. For example, the half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years. The pressure group Friends of the Earth once produced a poster showing a Roman centurion with the caption: "If the Romans had had nuclear power, we'd still be guarding their waste."
Cost
The economics of building new nuclear power stations are highly uncertain, the report says. It adds there is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if costs escalate there's a clear risk that the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. The capital costs of building stations are colossal and can swing wildly with project overruns and increases in interest rates. And do you factor in the enormous costs of decommissioning the stations at the end of their lives, or not?
Inflexibility
A new generation of big nuclear power stations would lock the UK into a wasteful, centralised electricity distribution system for the next 50 years. What is needed is the much less wasteful micro-generation (small local power stations) and local distribution networks. Micro-generation is an idea whose time has come: only yesterday, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said the capital would seek to combat climate change and cut CO2 emissions with a massive switch to generating power locally.
Security
If the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology. With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks. The security risks of any given nuclear power programme are hard to quantify, but no one would deny that they exist - for example in the movement of reactor-grade fuel or spent fuel, which might be seized by terrorists for potential use in a "dirty bomb".
Efficiency
A new nuclear power programme would send out a signal that a major technological fix is all that is required, says the report, and hurt efforts to encourage energy efficiency. This has largely been the approach of the Bush administration to climate change. Environmentalists would contend that this is a dangerous delusion, and that technical fixes such as nuclear power do nothing about the long-term problem. Only changing the energy system profoundly will make a real difference.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article349712.ece
7 March 2006 14:16
Environment
Analysis: Porritt whispers in PM's ear with all the force he can muster
By Michael McCarthy
Published: 07 March 2006
Listen to yesterday's Sustainable Development Commission report on nuclear power and you will hear something uncommon, fascinating and slightly awe-inspiring: the sound of a big beast in the environmental jungle, getting his retaliation in first.
Jonathon Porritt has come a long way since he was one of the founders of the Ecology Party (which subsequently became the Green Party), and then leader of Friends of the Earth. Now, as chair of the SDC, and Tony Blair's official environmental adviser, he is part of the government establishment.
But only to a degree. Sir Jonathon may be an Etonian by schooling and a baronet by title but he has remained radical in his green convictions, and one of those, which he shares with most other environmentalists, is that no good whatsoever can come of nuclear power.
He clearly sees the current Energy Review as a stitch-up, a cosmetic exercise to prepare the way for a new generation of nukes, and let's be honest, many would agree with him. The common perception is Tony Blair has taken the decision already.
But unlike most green activists, Sir Jonathon can actually do something about it. His position at the head of the SDC gives him direct access to Mr Blair and potentially enormous influence, and in certain circumstances, he has to be listened to. This is one of those circumstances, and he is making the most of it. He's not waiting for the outcome of the Energy Review; he's making a determined attempt to sway the result.
Yesterday's SDC report and accompanying papers represent the most thorough, hard-hitting and detailed case against the British nuclear option which has yet been produced. This is not green soundbite, this is serious stuff. It will have to weigh in the argument. It certainly raises dramatically the political stakes for Mr Blair - and for Mr Brown when he takes over - in opting for atomic power once again.
Mr Blair has never been anti-nuclear (he likes shiny modern technology). But he has been especially persuaded of the necessity of a full new nuclear-build programme to fight climate change, by the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. Sir David has been whispering in one Blair ear; Sir Jonathon is now whispering in the other, although perhaps whispering hardly does justice to the force of yesterday's report.
The reason Sir Jonathon may ultimately not succeed is that the detail of the arguments against nuclear, displayed so powerfully yesterday, is not what is going to count. Few people would dispute that there is no solution yet to nuclear waste, or that nuclear economics are uncertain, or that a nuclear programme would partially lock the UK into a centralised energy system, or that there is a major security risk associated with nuclear energy. It's all true.
But the essence of the argument Sir David King has put to Mr Blair is that climate change is so threatening that nuclear is essential despite all that.
But you can't say the other side of it hasn't been made properly now, in the struggle between David and Jonathon for the ear of the Prime Minister.
http://knotundone.blogspot.com/2005/11/vanuna-re-arrested-again-and-released.html
Vanunu evidently could benefit from some media attention, if the Israelis are indeed trying to confine him again on spying charges. Can anyone assist in getting him some much needed public attention and support? His email is: vmjc1954(at) gmail.com
Interesting developments in the UK on the nuclear front. It now transpires that British elements secretly and illegally supplied Israel with some of the plutonium they needed to develop their illicit nuclear weapon. This was back in the 1960s, and the revelation is only emerging now . This is important timing, considering that Blair is presently pushing for new nuclear reactors, to allegedly solve the UK's reliance on foreign energy sources, among other excuses, and that the US and Canada are both moving in the same direction. Articles follow.
Then there's the threatening gestures being levelled at Iran, over their desire for the very same thing everyone else seems to have. Personally, I'm opposed to all nuclear technology and weapons, regardless of which country is in possession of it. No-one has any solutions in terms of how to dispose of the waste, and it's caused untold grief and sickness in the countries it's been deployed against (atom bombs, and *depleted uranium- -- radioactive waste left over from nuclear bombs and reactors, used as a weapon in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere ),
* see this article- http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:NRT2KadTyewJ:feedthefish.org/blog/materials/johnson.html+plutonium++sickness+afghanistan&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3&ie=UTF-8) ,
not to mention the fallout from "mere" accidents, such as Three Mile Island and Cherynobal. The presence of these reactors are too convenient a target for terrorist organizations- many are located near large cities, and the civilian death toll would be unimaginable in the event of an attack.
From : vmjc vmjc1954@gmail.com
Sent : February 23, 2006 4:14:29 AM
To : 1vmjc
Subject : Trial,court Feb'22nd'.
to all those who did not receive this report.
Hi,Friends,Supporters.
Today the trial continue at 13:00, in the same court
in Jerusalem. Mr Feldman could not come to the
hearing so there was only Mr Michael Sfard as my
lawyer.
Few supporters were with me in the court, Jerry Levin
was there plus three from Norway and one from Belgium.
No press or any media people.
First, the judge Mr Yoel Zur, already this week gave a
decision that the court will not accept all the
evidence from the Internet and from 'Internet Chats'
taken without any authority from my computer by the
police.
Sfard cross examined the police man Peterburg, who
interrogated me months ago in the police offices,
about his methods especially with going through my
computers to see my emails and chats, and going to
court to ask for my arrest, and search my room.
Sfard prove to the court according to the police
documents, they asked Microsoft to give them details
of my Hotmail account, my passwords, and the IP
address. All this was after the police went to the
court , asking the judge the right to go to my emails.
Microsoft obeyed these orders and gave them all the
details, but not the Passwords. This took place on
Aug. 12th 2004. Three months before arresting me and
taking my computers. Sfard pointed out that it is
strange to ask Microsoft to give this information if
they don't have the court's order to listen to my
private conversations. It means they wanted to go to
my emails in secret or may be by they help the
secret services, the Shaback,Mossad. not as the police
stated, by Peterburg, that he did go to my email
account and all his material came only from my
computer.
More important revelation was, that the police each
time went to the court claiming that I am being
suspected with spying activity. Not just not
following the restrictions. So Mr Sfard wants the
police to tell the court what kind of espionage was I
involved with. The police man did not have any
answers and said that he brought all the evidence to
the court. When Sfard asked again Pterburg about any
material related to the 'espionage' Peterburg had no
answers.
So Sfard prove that the police had mislead the judges
who gave orders to arrest me, to search my room, to go
to my email, confiscate my computers (for almost a
year), and also mislead Microsoft to believe they are
helping in the case of espionage, other wise Microsoft
would not have cooperated with such orders.
It also revealed they have two Gov ministers orders,of keeping secrets documents {Hisaion},one by interior Security minister,one by defence minister,about what? we don't know,one thing is the secret cooperation ,work between the police and Shaback ,Mossad.
All this case, interrogations, arrests, confiscations
of private properties and more, all done from the the
start under the falls and misleading statements to the
courts of 'suspicion of espionage', and yet they are
not charging me with spy crimes.
{All these issues should had been raised in the early
testimony of the police man by Feldman.}
The judge also asked questions. He wants to know what
the police said to the judges when they asked all
these orders, how the proceedings been conducted,
then.
Peterburg most of the time said he does not remember.
It looked like he did not want to answer a lot of
questions.
The prosecutor wants the court to have the tapes,
where they video me in secret when I was interrogated
by the police in their offices.
The court decided to give time until May 1st, for each
side to write their arguments for and against " No
case to answer" .
That was it for today.
Please anyone who could suggest prominent names who
could testify on the subject of freedom of expression
and hopefully could come to testify or write on the
matter etc. Any ideas or help in this matter my right
of freedom of speech and that I have not committed any
crimes, include donation for legal expenses would be very welcome.
Thank You
vmjc
--
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4789832.stm >
Secret sale of UK plutonium to Israel
By Meirion Jones
BBC Newsnight
The UK supplied Israel with quantities of plutonium while Harold Wilson was prime minister, BBC Newsnight can reveal.
The sale was made despite a warning from British intelligence that it might "make a material contribution to an Israeli weapons programme".
Under Wilson, Britain also sold Israel tons of chemicals used to make boosted atom bombs 20 times more powerful than Hiroshima or even Hydrogen Bombs.
In Harold Macmillan's time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production plant at Dimona - heavy water which British intelligence estimated would allow Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".
All export licensing of materials associated with civil nuclear programmes went through stringent checks across Whitehall
Foreign Office
Last August on BBC Newsnight we revealed the first British/Israeli deal, the sale of the heavy water, but the government responded by telling the International Atomic Energy Agency the UK was not a party to any sale to Israel and that all it did was sell some heavy water back to Norway.
Hundreds of shipments
Using Freedom of Information, Newsnight has obtained top secret papers. They show Foreign Minister Kim Howells misled the IAEA and that Britain made not one, but hundreds of secret shipments of nuclear materials to Israel.
Tony Benn, who was Minister of Technology in 1966, is shocked to learn of the sales
Tony Benn became Minister of Technology in 1966 while the plutonium deal was going through. The nuclear industry was part of his "white heat of technology" brief but no one told him that we were exporting atomic energy materials to Israel.
"I'm not only surprised, I'm shocked," he says, adding that neither he nor his predecessor Frank Cousins, who was a member of CND, agreed to the sales.
Benn says he always suspected civil servants were doing deals behind his back but he never thought they would sell plutonium to Israel. "It never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government."
Dimona
Back in August 1960 covertly taken photos of a mysterious site at Dimona in Israel arrived at Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) in Whitehall. A brilliant analyst called Peter Kelly immediately realized they showed a secret nuclear reactor and he alerted the rest of British intelligence.
Kelly recognized it was a French reactor and soon discovered where the heavy water to run it had come from.
Selling plutonium to Israel was against UK government policy
Britain had bought heavy water from Norsk Hydro in Norway for its nuclear weapons programme but found it was surplus to requirements and needed a buyer. The papers obtained by Newsnight show that a company called Noratom acted as a consultant and arranged the deals in return for a 2% commission.
Britain knew all along that Israel wanted the heavy water "to produce plutonium" and Israel paid the full military price - £1 million - to avoid safeguards to stop the plutonium being used to make nuclear weapons.
Kelly discovered a charade was played out with the UK and Israeli delegations sitting in adjacent rooms while Noratom ferried separate contracts to and fro so Britain could say they hadn't signed a deal with Israel.
Once the press heard about Dimona in December 1960 there was an international outcry. Israel put out a cover story that it was a small research reactor. This did not fool Kelly. Using the figure of 20 tons of heavy water he estimated that Israel could build a reactor capable of producing "significant quantities of plutonium".
Michael Crick has used Freedom of Information to obtain secret papers
British intelligence learnt there was also a reprocessing plant and concluded "the separation of plutonium can only mean that Israel intends to produce nuclear weapons". Kelly even discovered that an Israeli observer had been allowed to watch one of the first French nuclear tests in Algeria.
Kelly and his colleagues in intelligence soon found their views about Israel were being challenged by Britain's representative at the IAEA Mike Michaels, who worked for one of the main figures in Harold Macmillan's Cabinet - Lord Hailsham.
Michaels received a JIC report early in 1961 estimating Israel would take at least three years to make enough plutonium and then another six months to work out how to make a bomb.
But it occurred to him that a friendly power might give Israel a small sample of plutonium to speed up the process. "Perhaps the French have supplied a small quantity for experimental purposes as we did to the French in like circumstances some years ago," he noted in the margin of the report. A few years later Michaels persuaded the UK to sell Israel a small sample of plutonium when he was aware - as this note shows - that this might cut months off the time it took them to get the Bomb.
Invitation
The Israeli nuclear chief, Ernst David Bergmann, personally invited Michaels to Israel. Kelly warned Israel might use Michaels as part of a disinformation campaign to show "everything is above board". Michaels was given VIP treatment. He met not only Bergmann but Shimon Peres and Prime Minister David Ben Gurion - the three fathers of the Israeli Bomb.
As Kelly suspected, Michaels' report gave Israel the all clear and he handed it to Hailsham at a crucial time, two days before Ben Gurion met Harold Macmillan at Downing Street.
Tony Benn thinks it inconceivable that Harold Wilson knew of atomic exports to Israel
In 1962 the Dimona reactor started turning uranium into plutonium, thanks to the heavy water Britain had delivered, but Michaels continued to protest Israel's innocence.
Then at the beginning of 1966 UK Atomic Energy Authority made what they remarkably called a "pretty harmless request". They wanted to export 10 milligrammes of plutonium to Israel. The MoD strongly objected and Defence Intelligence wrote directly to say the sale might have "significant military value".
The Foreign Office told UKAEA "It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons" and therefore they blocked the sale.
Sale
Michaels wrote angrily "to protest strongly" against the decision. Five years earlier he had noted such a sale could speed up the Israeli bomb programme, now he was powerfully advocating just that. He said small quantities of plutonium were not important and anyhow if we didn't sell it to the Israelis someone else would. The Foreign Office gave in and the sale went ahead. Kelly believes Mike Michaels knew all along that Israel was after the Bomb. He died in 1992.
Tony Benn is incredulous that Michaels never referred the Israeli nuclear sales to him or Frank Cousins. They were after all the ministers in charge of Britain's nuclear industry including imports and exports. "Michaels lied to me. I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again".
The atomic files, which have been classified until now, detail hundreds of nuclear deals with Israel flagged up as sensitive.
Benn's initial reaction to whether Harold Wilson knew about atomic exports to Israel was "it's inconceivable". Then he muses: "Harold was sympathetic to Israel," before concluding that this was probably a conspiracy by civil servants and the nuclear industry to flout HMG policy.
This report was shown on Newsnight on Thursday, 9 March, 2006.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article349711.ece
Plan for new nuclear programme approaches meltdown after report
By Michael Harrison, and Michael McCarthy
Published: 07 March 2006
Tony Blair's backing for nuclear power suffered a blow yesterday when the Government's own advisory body on sustainable development came down firmly against the building of a new generation of reactors.
Despite the Prime Minister's well-known support for the nuclear industry, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) concluded that a new nuclear programme was not the answer to the twin challenges of climate change and security of supply. In a hard-hitting report, the 15-strong Commission identified five "major disadvantages" to nuclear power:
* The lack of a long-term strategy for dealing with highly toxic nuclear waste
* Uncertainty over the cost of new nuclear stations and the risk that taxpayers would be left to pick up the tab;
* The danger that going down the nuclear route would lock the UK into a centralised system for distributing energy for the next 50 years;
* The risk a new nuclear programme would undermine efforts to improve energy efficiency;
* The threat of terrorist attacks and radiation exposure if other countries with lower safety standards also opt for nuclear.
Nuclear power generates 20 per cent of the UK's electricity but, by 2020, that will have shrunk to 7 per cent and, by 2035, the last of the current generation of stations will have closed, potentially leaving the UK highly dependent on imported gas.
But instead of sanctioning a new nuclear programme, the SDC urged Mr Blair to back a further expansion of renewable power, fresh measures to promote energy efficiency and the development of new technologies such as "carbon capture" to tackle the environmental threat posed by fossil-fuelled stations.
The commission's report comes just three months before the Government publishes the results of its latest energy review, which is widely expected to pave the wave for a new generation of nuclear stations.
Sir Jonathon Porritt, the chairman of the commission, said:"Instead of hurtling along to a pre-judged conclusion (which many fear the Government is intent on doing) we must look to the evidence. There's little point in denying that nuclear power has its benefits but, in our view, these are outweighed by serious disadvantages. The Government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix to our climate change and energy crises - there simply isn't one."
The commission said that even if the UK's existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only lead to an 8 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels. By contrast, renewable energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and biomass, which are zero-carbon sources of energy, could supply 68-87 per cent of the country's electricity needs if fully exploited.
Sir Jonathon added that opting for the "big-bang fix" of a new nuclear programme would jeopardise public-sector support for renewable power. It would also undermine efforts to improve energy efficiency, which the report estimates could reduce UK energy demand by as much as 30 to 40 per cent and cut carbon emissions by 20 million tons a year - equivalent to the output of 27 power stations.
Sir Jonathon said, that among the commission's 15 members, eight had come down against nuclear power, five had concluded it was not yet time for a new programme and two had said there was "maybe" a case for more reactors. He also took a sideswipe at other well-known environmentalists such as James Lovelock who backs nuclear power. "No one person should be accorded that over-arching credibility in the face of the evidence before us," he said.
The environmental pressure groups Friends of the Earth welcomed the commission's findings. Its director, Tony Juniper, said: "Tony Blair and his Government must now seize the historic opportunity presented by the energy review to set the UK on course to becoming a world leader in developing a low-carbon, nuclear free economy."
The Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, who is leading the review, gave a guarded reaction, saying: "As the commission itself finds, this is not a black and white issue. It does, however, agree that it is right we are assessing the potential contribution of new nuclear."
Philip Dewhurst, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, voiced his "disappointment" at the report's findings but said he was pleased that the commission had confirmed nuclear as a low carbon source of energy, recognised its improved safety record and only voted by 8-7 to rule out new reactors.
Meanwhile, London's Mayor Ken Livingstone unveiled plans to revolutionise the capital's energy supply system to fight climate change. London is to spend many millions of pounds "decentralising" its electricity supplies - switching from giant power stations to much smaller units, generating power locally - by joining forces with the energy multi-national EDF to develop local electricity generating sites and networks across the capital. The commission's report warns that this is just the kind of development that would be compromised if the UK went down the nuclear route.
The five key objections
Waste
No long-term solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste, such as the spent fuel from atomic power stations, are yet available, let alone acceptable to the public, the report says. Nuclear waste is dangerous, hard to manage, and long-lasting in its effects. For example, the half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years. The pressure group Friends of the Earth once produced a poster showing a Roman centurion with the caption: "If the Romans had had nuclear power, we'd still be guarding their waste."
Cost
The economics of building new nuclear power stations are highly uncertain, the report says. It adds there is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if costs escalate there's a clear risk that the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. The capital costs of building stations are colossal and can swing wildly with project overruns and increases in interest rates. And do you factor in the enormous costs of decommissioning the stations at the end of their lives, or not?
Inflexibility
A new generation of big nuclear power stations would lock the UK into a wasteful, centralised electricity distribution system for the next 50 years. What is needed is the much less wasteful micro-generation (small local power stations) and local distribution networks. Micro-generation is an idea whose time has come: only yesterday, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said the capital would seek to combat climate change and cut CO2 emissions with a massive switch to generating power locally.
Security
If the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology. With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks. The security risks of any given nuclear power programme are hard to quantify, but no one would deny that they exist - for example in the movement of reactor-grade fuel or spent fuel, which might be seized by terrorists for potential use in a "dirty bomb".
Efficiency
A new nuclear power programme would send out a signal that a major technological fix is all that is required, says the report, and hurt efforts to encourage energy efficiency. This has largely been the approach of the Bush administration to climate change. Environmentalists would contend that this is a dangerous delusion, and that technical fixes such as nuclear power do nothing about the long-term problem. Only changing the energy system profoundly will make a real difference.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article349712.ece
7 March 2006 14:16
Environment
Analysis: Porritt whispers in PM's ear with all the force he can muster
By Michael McCarthy
Published: 07 March 2006
Listen to yesterday's Sustainable Development Commission report on nuclear power and you will hear something uncommon, fascinating and slightly awe-inspiring: the sound of a big beast in the environmental jungle, getting his retaliation in first.
Jonathon Porritt has come a long way since he was one of the founders of the Ecology Party (which subsequently became the Green Party), and then leader of Friends of the Earth. Now, as chair of the SDC, and Tony Blair's official environmental adviser, he is part of the government establishment.
But only to a degree. Sir Jonathon may be an Etonian by schooling and a baronet by title but he has remained radical in his green convictions, and one of those, which he shares with most other environmentalists, is that no good whatsoever can come of nuclear power.
He clearly sees the current Energy Review as a stitch-up, a cosmetic exercise to prepare the way for a new generation of nukes, and let's be honest, many would agree with him. The common perception is Tony Blair has taken the decision already.
But unlike most green activists, Sir Jonathon can actually do something about it. His position at the head of the SDC gives him direct access to Mr Blair and potentially enormous influence, and in certain circumstances, he has to be listened to. This is one of those circumstances, and he is making the most of it. He's not waiting for the outcome of the Energy Review; he's making a determined attempt to sway the result.
Yesterday's SDC report and accompanying papers represent the most thorough, hard-hitting and detailed case against the British nuclear option which has yet been produced. This is not green soundbite, this is serious stuff. It will have to weigh in the argument. It certainly raises dramatically the political stakes for Mr Blair - and for Mr Brown when he takes over - in opting for atomic power once again.
Mr Blair has never been anti-nuclear (he likes shiny modern technology). But he has been especially persuaded of the necessity of a full new nuclear-build programme to fight climate change, by the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. Sir David has been whispering in one Blair ear; Sir Jonathon is now whispering in the other, although perhaps whispering hardly does justice to the force of yesterday's report.
The reason Sir Jonathon may ultimately not succeed is that the detail of the arguments against nuclear, displayed so powerfully yesterday, is not what is going to count. Few people would dispute that there is no solution yet to nuclear waste, or that nuclear economics are uncertain, or that a nuclear programme would partially lock the UK into a centralised energy system, or that there is a major security risk associated with nuclear energy. It's all true.
But the essence of the argument Sir David King has put to Mr Blair is that climate change is so threatening that nuclear is essential despite all that.
But you can't say the other side of it hasn't been made properly now, in the struggle between David and Jonathon for the ear of the Prime Minister.
posted by Dawn One at 1:58 pm
0 comments
