Peace and prosperity
Fidel Castro Ruz

POPE Benedict XVI outsmarted Brown, the British Prime Minister, who replaced Blair, whom I met and spoke with for a few minutes during a recess at the WTO Second Conference in Geneva 10 years ago; it was following his speech and I was expressing my disagreement on the matter of an incorrect sentence he used about the social situation of British children. Brown’s voice, positions and tone at his press conference in the presence of Bush, gave me the impression that he is self-assuming as his predecessor in the leadership of the Labor Party. The activities of the new British Prime Minister, coinciding with the Pope’s visit, were just like those of a leader of the government of a banana republic.
Benedict XVI paid special attention to April 13th when, 65 years ago, over one thousand prisoners were incinerated in the town of Gardelegen; this became a day remembered in the martyrology suffered by the Jewish people in Nazi Germany, a human tragedy that lasted years. Bush welcomed him at Andrews Air Force Base in the U.S., an unusual gesture.  Benedict XVI, as a German bishop was a conservative who disliked changes in social policies and in the internal norms governing his Church. Initially, the U.S. mainstream press was relentless, due to the irregularities committed contrary to the norms guiding the faithful. They even described the Roman Catholic Church as a decadent religion.
His visit also coincided with his 81st birthday. Bush, thoughtful and indulgent, sang Happy Birthday to him, right on the 16th. The Pope was, undoubtedly, smart as he started to counterattack from the beginning of his visit. In spite of his 81 years that he would be celebrating a few hours later, he descended from the plane, barely touching the handrails of the steep steps, and by the time he reached the last treads, he was not even doing that. He is a short man who appears to weigh about half of what Bush weighs. He has a light step. He never, for one single minute, abandoned his smile and the sparkle in his eyes, and he immediately set out to follow a schedule that would have exhausted any 18 year-old visitor. Television coverage went wild.
The Pope visited universities, a Catholic cultural centre built just for the occasion; he met with representatives from hundreds of Catholic schools and universities across the huge country. The leader of the empire did not dare ask the Vatican State for “a new constitution and free elections” like he has dreamed up for Cuba. As the leader of a Church, at a time when a war  has been unleashed by the United States against the Muslims, his message was ecumenical and favorable to peace.
He met with representatives of religions whose churches hold influence over billions of people. Jewish leaders received him warmly. Of course, they idealized the capitalist system of the United States. One of the rabbis from Miami said that 90 percent of Jews in Cuba had moved to that city; he should have made it clear that it didn’t happen because we were persecuting them or because they were granted U.S. visas, but because they opted for the right to travel legally as offered by the Revolution and, just like many Cubans from other ethnic groups, they were in search of material advantages which they had not been able to attain in colonial Cuba. Jewish synagogues remained opened and respected here, and their representatives, together with the rest of the churches, have meetings with leaders of the Party and the Revolutionary Government, even at the highest levels.
In the United States, the Pope’s visit to a synagogue was greatly praised.  It is the third time that a Pope visits those Jewish religious centers. The first time was when John Paul II visited a synagogue in Poland; then, Benedict XVI visited another in Germany; and this one, in New York City, was the first time in this country. It is particularly important to claim for the right to life in the name of freedom of creed. Benedict XVI addressed the United Nations Organization in his capacity as the religious leader of a powerful church deeply rooted among many peoples of the world:
“…The desire for peace, the quest for justice, respect for the dignity of the person, humanitarian cooperation and assistance - express the just aspirations of the human spirit...” “…Development goals, reduction of local and global inequalities, protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate, require all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the law, and promoting solidarity with the weakest regions of the planet…”
“Here our thoughts turn also to the way the results of scientific research and technological advances have sometimes been applied.”
“[These rights] are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations.”
“…The saying: Do not do to others what you would not want done to you ‘cannot in any way vary according to the different understandings that have arisen in the world’…”
“My presence at this Assembly is a sign of esteem for the United Nations, and it is intended to express the hope that the Organization will increasingly serve as a sign of unity between States and an instrument of service to the entire human family.”
When he concluded, he exclaimed in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Russian:  “Peace and prosperity with God’s help!”
Even though it is not easy to decipher the Vatican’s thinking on the thorny issues that are being dealt with in a world where the President of the United States and his rich and developed allies have imposed a bloody war against the culture and religion of more than a billion persons in the name of the fight against terrorism, and where torture, pillage and conquest by force of hydrocarbons and raw materials reigns supreme, what the Pope stated is the antithesis of the policy of brutality and force applied by the singer of Happy Birthday.
In the next few days, the peoples of Latin America shall be on the verge of confronting two tragedies: that of Paraguay and that of Bolivia. One of them, through the elections that are being held today, on Sunday April 20, where a former Catholic bishop carries an overwhelming majority of popular support, according to serious surveys, and the rejection of electoral fraud is certain; the other, through the threat of real disintegration of its territory which shall lead to fratricidal struggles in the long-suffering country.
Today, Benedict XIV returns to Rome. The lovely, impressive hymns have ceased in the temples. Now we shall continue to hear the odious and never-ending explosions of weapons.

 

Nuclear power without proliferation
Amjed Jaaved

AT THE 24th Conference of the Nuclear Societies, held in Israel, several experts examined the need for nuclear power and the risks associated with it. In his paper titled “Nuclear Renaissance and Non-Proliferation”, Pierre Goldschmidt, visiting Scholar to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, stressed mounting need for nuclear energy in coming years. He quoted latest projections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about production of electricity by nuclear power plants. According to the IAEA, nuclear power will increase by 25 per cent to 90 per cent before year 2,030, as compared to year 2007. He assessed that 350 more nuclear power reactors are needed to meet increased demand for nuclear energy. As for misuse of nuclear-power fuel, his view was that existing safeguards could be revamped to obviate possibility of nuclear proliferation. He severely criticized concessions, envisioned for India as a ‘special case’, under the 123 Agreement.
Several other experts, at different for a, have examined the question of nuclear renaissance with concomitant risk of proliferation. They include Paul Leventhal, Steven Dolley, Richard Rhodes, Amory B Lovins, Robert H. Williams, Zachary S. Davis, et al (see Paul Leventhal, Sharon Tanzer, and Steven Dolley [editors], Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons: Can We Have One without the Other?). Despite hazards of nuclear power, the industrially advanced countries have not abandoned their reactors. It meets bulk of its energy needs from plutonium-based electricity. Japan is the Iynchpin, the most important customer of the European reprocessing and mixed-oxide fuel industries. Without Japan’s imports, the European exports may collapse.
Imported plutonium-oxide is more prone to cause accidents than domestically-cycled uranium. As such, Japan could ensure its energy security by building a strategic reserve of non-weapon-capable uranium. But, Japan prefers to employ in its power reactors weapon-usable plutonium. Imported plutonium-oxide is more prone to cause accidents than domestically-cycled uranium. For instance, in one case, Japan detected that British Nuclear Fuels Limited had deliberately falsified the quality control data for mixed-oxide fuel it was shipping to Japan for use in light-water reactors. Japan remains listless to protests from many nations because of alarm over the regular transports of mixed-oxide fuel and highly radioactive reprocessing waste that now pass close to their coastlines along routes from Europe to Japan. In the United States, about 50 per cent of the nuclear plants failed to repel mock attacks (force-on-force exercises conducted by US Nuclear Regulatory Commission). The nuclear power plants have failed to repel mock attacks. The mock attackers were able to reach and “destroy” complete sets of redundant core-cooling systems (p. 9, ibid.).
The mock attacks exposed vulnerability of US nuclear-plants. There were19 attackers in September-eleven attacks. But, in the mock attacks, the ‘adversary’ comprised far fewer attackers. America’s most creative fissionbomb designer, Theodore Taylor has expressed the view that the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki packed in baseball-size explosive energy equivalent to a pile of dynamite as big as White House. Such first-generation bombs could be fabricated by terrorists or radical states that manage to get their hands on the nuclear material. In view of the security failures, it would have been natural for the Commission to beef up security arrangements inside and around power reactors. But, in the wake of industry’s complaints, the Commission withheld corrective enforcement action. Instead, it agreed to transfer supervision of the exercises to nuclear-plant operators themselves. It is doubtful whether private-guards in lieu of military protection, themselves could assure security of nuclear-power plants.
The US has canceled its commercial plutonium and fast-breeder-reactor programmes. But, heavily subsidized plutonium reactors continue to throb, the world over. Japan and other countries are undeterred by nuclear accidents, and the risks of proliferation. The reason is lack of an economically viable energy source like renewables and decarbonizes fossil fuels, utilizing carbon sequestration. The World Energy Council’s estimates of generating 20,000-terawatt per year, at cost of less than one cent per kilowatt hour, or solar energy, through photovoltaic cells at cost of 4.5-5 cents per kilowatt-hour remain unrealized reveries. The American industry’s concern about electricity shortage and global warming prompted Bush administration to revive and expand nuclear power. Dick Cheney, US vice president, says (April 8, 2001) that ‘the United States will need to build sixty-five new power plants annually’ to meet its energy demand.
If the USA could not do without nuclear energy, how could the poor countries? It is cruel to deny cheap, clean source of nuclear energy to billions of people around the globe. Instead of designing country-specific agreements like the 123, cost-effective. Nuclear power plants should be made available to all poor countries. Steven Dolley stresses (p. 17 ibid.): “Proliferation does not increase with more nuclear power. Indeed eliminating nuclear power might encourage proliferation by increasing structural violence caused by scarcity”. The riots sparked by power shortage in Pakistan bear out his observation.





Baglihar rigmarole
Deeba Jaaved

INDIA has decided to build three more dams on the River Chenab within the next four years. To achieve this purpose, a Chenab Valley Power Projects company has been established. All the three dams will be constructed in Doda district of occupied Kashmir. The dams— Kiru (600 MW), Pakal Dul (1,000 MW) and Karwa (520 MW) — are to be constructed in the Doda district. The three projects, with cumulative installed capacity of around 2,120 MW, will cost Rs 12,720 crore. India claims that the projects would be immensely beneficial for Kashmiris. But, past projects belie India’s claim. For instance, the bulk of power, generated by Salal, Dul Husti and Uri dams was transferred to Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi. The net benefit to disputed state was only just about 12.5 percent power, supplied to the state, as royalty. India constructed the three dams at total cost of Rs 9,454 crore. However, the profit earned during the previous year, alone, was Rs 300 crore.
Pakal Dul project envisages construction of a reservoir on the Marusudar River, the main right bank tributary of the Chenab River, in the Kishtwar tehsil (Doda district). The reservoir would have rock-filed 167 metre-high flanks at Drangdhuran village, coupled with an underground powerhouse. Obviously, the reservoir would choke downhill water flow to Pakistan. Such an eventuality would be a stark violation of the Indus Water Basin Water Treaty. The treaty has remained intact despite wars between the two neighbours. India’s current initiatives reflect that she has no qualms about violating the letter and spirit of the treaty.
India’s intransigence appears to have been actuated by the Baglihar `award’. The `neutral’ expert did not stall the construction of the submerged spillway. His plea was that the there was no provision in the Indus Water Treaty to stop further construction of the spillway, under supervision of Israeli engineers. India intends to build not only three additional dams on River Chenab, but also 48 more dams on rivers originating in Kashmir. India believes that the Baglihar award is a rebuke to Pakistan’s point of view. Besides, under Article 81 of the Hague Convention 1 of 1907, awards are definitive and without appeal. Furthermore, there is no international mechanism to declare an award null and void.
Pakistan’s view is that it acclaims the award as a `great victory’. However, it has reservations concerning the `neutral’ expert’s opinion in favour of the spillway. Pakistan has made it clear that it reserves `the right to take up the spillway issue anytime at an appropriate forum’. Aside from India’s euphoria, Pakistan does have a sound case to challenge the `award’ on several grounds, subject to World Bank’s nod. Pakistan could point out that the expert’s opinion is not an award. The textual construction of the IWT by the neutral expert is at variance with the object and purpose of the treaty. The Vienna Convention directs that a treaty should not be interpreted stricto sensuo on the basis of the text. The underlying object and purpose, also, have to be kept in view. Pakistan should reject the whole `award’ as a nullity. The World Court accepted the case (1960), concerning the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain. The Court observed that, in certain circumstances, an award could be so vitiated as to amount to a nullity. India’s euphoria would peter out, if Pakistani lawyers are able to prove that the `neutral’ expert committed exces de pouvoir and made an essential error of judgment.