In 2014, France lost part of the control of its nuclear power plants to the United States. Frederic Pierucci, former senior executive of one of Alstom's power company subsidiaries, found himself at the heart of this state scandal. His story goes to the very core of how he plotted the key features of the secret economic war that the United States is waging in Europe. And after being silenced for a long time, he has decided, with the help of journalist Matthieu Aron, to reveal all. In April 2013, Frederic Pierucci was arrested in New York by the FBI and accused of bribery. The US authorities imprisoned him for more than two years - including fourteen months in a notorious maximum-security prison. In doing so, they forced Alstom to pay the biggest financial penalty ever imposed by the United States. In the end, Alstom also gave up areas of control to General Electric, its biggest American competitor. Frederic's story unpacks how the United States is using corporate law as an economic weapon against its own allies. One after the other, some of the world's largest companies are being actively destabilised to the benefit of the US, in acts of economic sabotage that seem to be the beginning of what's to come...

Commentaar LT: Het goed gemaakte rapport laat zien hoe afhankelijk de wereld is van kernenergie en verschaft zowat alle data om kernenergie ook politiek te evalueren. De wereld telt 417 operationele kernreactoren, waarvan er 126 in de EU staan. Frankrijk is voor 71,7 procent van de elektriciteitsproductie afhankelijk van kernenergie en een uitstap is daar het moeilijkst. Ook voor België ligt dat met 39% gevoelig. In Nederland is dat opvallend laag: 3%. Het zijn die cijfers die in de klimaatdiscussie een hoofdrol spelen.
De nucleaire lobby scoort natuurlijk goed o.w.v. de zero emissie van CO2. Daarentegen blijft de opslag van kernafval een niet opgelost probleem. Menselijke fouten kunnen leiden tot kernongevallen. Opvallend maar verklaarbaar: de gemiddelde ouderdom van de kerncentrales wereldwijd is 30 jaar.
Het is nodig dat alle facetten van het dossier op tafel komen en dit rapport levert een niet te onderschatten bijdrage. Lezenswaardig.

Het verdrag verbiedt het gebruik en de productie van middenlange afstandsraketten met kernkoppen.
Als tegenmaatregel stapt Rusland eveneens uit het verdrag.

Uiteraard ligt Europa in de actieradius van de raketten.
Is de Koude Oorlog weer daar?

Better late than never: German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is planning to make a statement this week on his office’s handling of the criminal sect Colonia Dignidad, a German settlement located in a huge compound in Chile. From 1961 on the group’s founder and leader Paul Schäfer was involved in drugging residents and the rape of children from the sect and the neighboring villages. After 1973, the Colonia collaborated with the Pinochet dictatorship to run a torture prison for opponents of the regime. Steinmeier’s announcement raises high expectations. In 2010 the German foreign ministry set high standards with its historical work “The Ministry and the past. German diplomats in the Third Reich and in the Federal Republic” (Das Amt und die Vergangenheit. Deutsche Diplomaten im Dritten Reich und in der Bundesrepublik). At the instigation of the Foreign Minister at the time, Joschka Fischer, a commission of academics researched not only the role of the foreign ministry in the Nazi system, but also the continuity of personnel and ideology within the fledgling Federal Republic of Germany. I would have wished for one short extra chapter: German diplomacy during the Argentine and Chilean military dictatorships. There would have been plenty of grounds for it. In February 1976, shortly before the military putsch, the German ambassador in Buenos Aires Jörg Kastl recommended that Germany “work together with the new regime” and later stressed Argentina’s importance as a “cornerstone of the expanded transatlantic security framework, a market and source of raw materials, home of many German settlers and German assets, and ever a true friend to our Volk”. Cold war mentality in its purest form: global communism as the enemy that must be fought by any means. Around the same time, the Pinochet regime was more or less publicly torturing people at the national stadium in Santiago de Chile. In Argentina it was done in secret, but the abductions and torture, including of German citizens, after the military seized power were well known around the world – again, including here in Germany. Yet German diplomats did scandalously little and even helped the military to spread their lies, as in the case of German woman Elisabeth Käsemann. Käsemann was tortured in the secret detention center El Vesubio and subsequently murdered. To cover it up the junta made it look like she had died in combat. The military placed weapons beside her body, and the bodies of other dead prisoners, to make them look like guerrilla fighters. German diplomats visited the torture and rape colony Colonia Dignidad several times from the mid 1960s on. And yet they didn’t intervene, as they were obliged to do, until well into the 1980s, despite being familiar with the witness testimonies of escaped former residents and the reports on the torture from Amnesty International. The few people who managed to leave the colony got no help from the embassy; in fact, the embassy handed them back to the Colonia leadership, who brutally punished anyone who tried to flee. Even after Hartmut Hopp, the sect’s doctor and Schäfer’s right-hand man, faced torture allegations before a human rights commission at the German parliament in 1988, the prosecutor’s office in Bonn didn’t feel the need to seriously examine the role played by the Germans in Chile. In the meantime, prosecutors in Krefeld started investigations against Hopp after he dodged a sentence handed down to him in Chile. A court in Chile sentenced him to five years in prison for aiding and abetting the sexual abuse of minors but Hopp fled to Germany before serving the time. But Germany’s role in the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina is not just a matter of failures on the part of the foreign ministry. Other entities also played a role. German industry made weapons and nuclear deals with the dictatorships. Mercedes Benz helped to “disappear” trade unionists who stood in their way. Meanwhile, the regime’s henchmen were given a red carpet welcome in Germany, and officers were provided with training in weapons techniques. Bigwigs from the CSU party gave their unwritten support to the dictatorships. And most of the German public looked the other way. So, better late than never: a thorough investigation is needed into the actions of German diplomats, as well as the intelligence services and the defense ministry, during the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina. The victims must be compensated. And then there must be other consequences: disciplinary consequences, criminal proceedings, and where still possible, political consequences, in order to ensure that in future, human rights are respected in foreign politics. One final note: between 1974 and 1992 the German foreign ministry was led by Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who was recently honored in a German state ceremony.

Germany asks Belgium to take 2 nuclear reactors offline over safety concerns
Germany has asked Belgium to take two nuclear reactors temporarily offline while questions about their safety are cleared up, Reuters reported. In an unusual diplomatic move, Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks said she asked Belgium to shut down its Tihange 2 and Doel 3 reactors. The Reactor Safety Commission that advises the ministry earlier could not confirm the reactors would be safe in the event of a hazardous incident. Belgium’s Energy Ministry has not commented on the matter. Germany pledged to abandon nuclear power generation completely by 2022 in favor of other power sources.

'Persian Gulf states are seeking nuclear weapons to counter “bad guy” Iran and have held clandestine meetings with Israel despite not having official ties with Tel Aviv, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon revealed at the Munich Security Conference in Germany.'

Dat meldt RT.

Jeremy Bernard Corbyn (born 26 May 1949) is a British Labour Party politician who, on 12 September 2015, was elected as Leader of the Labour Party and thereby Leader of the Opposition. Since 1983 he has served as Member of Parliament (MP) for Islington North.

As a self-described democratic socialist, Corbyn has advocated the re-nationalisation of public utilities and railways, re-opening coal mines, combating corporate tax evasion and avoidance as an alternative to austerity, abolishing university tuition fees and restoring student grants, a unilateral policy of nuclear disarmament and cancellation of the Trident nuclear weapons programme, quantitative easing to fund infrastructure and renewable energy projects, and reversing cuts to the public sector and welfare made since 2010 by the government of David Cameron.

1 Absolut Resources Corp. Gold, Platinum, Uranium

2 Acclaim Exploration NL Gold, Uranium

3 Afrikander Lease Ltd. Gold, Uranium

4 Alberta Star Mining Corp Uranium

5 Alliance Energy Ltd. Gold, Copper, Uranium

6 Anaconda Uranium Corporation Uranium

7 Anglo American plc Gold, Platinum, Palladium, Diamonds, Niobium, Vanadium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Zinc, Coal, Uranium, Mineral Sands, Phosphate, Potash

8 Anglogold, Limited Gold, Uranium

9 Anglovaal Mining Limited - Avmin Gold, Platinum, Palladium, Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Uranium

10 Ashton Mining Limited. Diamonds, Rare Earths, Uranium

11 Aztec Resources Limited Uranium

12 Balmain Resources Pty Ltd. Uranium

13 Bokum Resources Corp. Uranium

14 Cameco Corporation Gold, Uranium

15 Canning Resources Pty Ltd (Sub of Rio Tinto) Uranium

16 Cassiar Resources Inc. Magnesium, Uranium

17 Central Coal & Coke Corp Coal, Uranium

18 Central Pacific Minerals NL. Oil Shale, Uranium

19 China National Nuclear Corporation Uranium

20 Cline Mining Corporation Gold, Vanadium, Uranium

21 Cogema Group (Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires) Uranium

22 Cogema Resources (Canada) Inc. Uranium

23 Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA) Uranium

24 Compania Nationala a Uraniului S.A. Uranium

25 Consolidated Trillion Resources Ltd. Gold, Platinum, Diamonds, Cobalt, Copper, Nickel, Uranium

26 Cotter Corp. Silver, Tungston, Vanadium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, Zinc, Uranium, Limestone, Selenium

27 Crested Corp. Gold, Molybdenum, Uranium

28 Denison Energy Inc Uranium

29 Diamo s.p. Uranium

30 Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited Gold, Uranium

31 East Rand Gold and Uranium Company Ltd Gold, Uranium

32 Empresa Nacional de Urânio, S.A. (ENU) Uranium

33 Empresa Nacional del Uranio S.A. (ENUSA) Uranium

34 Energy Resources of Australia Limited Uranium

35 Equinox Resources NL. Gold, Copper, Uranium

36 Everest Exploration, Inc. Uranium

37 Far West Mining Ltd Gold, Silver, Diamonds, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Uranium

38 Formation Capital Corporation Silver, Cobalt, Lead, Zinc, Uranium

39 General Atomics Uranium

40 Giralia Resources NL. Gold, Copper, Uranium

41 Glencar Mining PLC Gold, Lead, Zinc, Uranium

42 Goldstream Mining NL. Gold, Uranium

43 Great Western Gold Corp. Gold, Diamonds, Rare Earths, Uranium

44 Haddington Resources Limited Gold, Tantalum, Uranium

45 Heathgate Resources Pty. Uranium

46 Hornby Bay Exploration Limited Gold, Diamonds, Uranium

47 Indústrias Nucleares do Brasil Uranium

48 International Uranium (USA) Corporation Uranium

49 International Uranium Corporation Uranium

50 JNR Resources Inc. Uranium

51 KazAtomProm Uranium

52 Kennecott Uranium Company (Sub of Rio Tinto) Uranium

53 Magnesium International Limited Magnesium, Uranium

54 Metalline Mining Company Silver, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Uranium

55 Musgrave Block Holdings Ltd Uranium

56 Navoi Mining and Metallurgical Complex Gold, Fluorspar, Uranium

57 North Limited Gold, Copper, Iron, Zinc, Uranium

58 Northern Continental Resources Inc Uranium

59 PNC Exploration (Australia) Pty Ltd Uranium

60 Pacific Amber Resources Ltd. Gold, Uranium, Technology

61 Palabora Mining Company Limited Zircon, Copper, Magnetite, Uranium, Vermiculite

62 Paladin Resources NL. Gold, Copper, Uranium

63 Pioneer Metals Corporation Gemstones-other, Uranium

64 Platoro West Incorporated Gold, Silver, Tungston, Vanadium, Lead, Zinc, Uranium

65 Priargunskoye Production Mining Chemical Association Uranium

66 Reefton Mining NL. Gold, Silver, Diamonds, Tantalum, Tungston, Copper, Lead, Tin, Zinc, Uranium

67 Resolute Limited. Gold, Uranium

68 Richards Bay Minerals Zircon, Titanium, Iron, Uranium

69 Rio Algom Limited Gold, Silver, Copper, Lead, Molybdenum, Zinc, Coal, Uranium

70 Rio Tinto Ltd Gold, Silver, Gemstones-other, Aluminum, Titanium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Zinc, Uranium

71 Rössing Uranium Ltd Uranium

72 Sedimentary Holdings Ltd Gold, Uranium

73 Shane Resources Ltd. Gold, Diamonds, Zinc, Uranium

74 Southern Cross Exploration NL. Gold, Diamonds, Uranium

75 Southern Cross Resources Australia Pty Ltd Uranium

76 Southern Cross Resources Inc. Uranium

77 Strathmore Minerals Corp Uranium

78 Summit Resources NL Gold, Copper, Uranium

79 Thunderbolt Resources NL (See now Admiralty Resources) Gold, Silver, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Uranium

80 Titan Resources NL Cobalt, Copper, Nickel, Uranium

81 Tyhee Development Corp. Gold, Silver, Bismuth, Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Uranium

82 U.S. Energy Corp. Gold, Silver, Molybdenum, Uranium

83 UEX Corporation Uranium

84 Uranerzbergbau GmbH Uranium

85 Urangesellschaft mbH Uranium

86 Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. Uranium

87 Uranium Power Corporation Uranium

88 Uranium Producers in Minegate Uranium

89 Uranium Resources, Inc. Uranium

90 Uravan Minerals Inc. Platinum, Palladium, Zircon, Titanium, Uranium

91 Utah-Idaho Consolidated Uranium, Inc.. Uranium

92 Vostochny Integrated Mining and Concentrating Plant (VostGOK) Uranium

93 WM Mining International Ltd. Uranium

94 WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation) Pty Ltd Copper, Uranium

95 WMC Limited Gold, Platinum, Palladium, Silver, Aluminum, Copper, Nickel, Uranium, Talc

96 World Wide Minerals Ltd. Gold, Uranium

97 Yuendumu Mining Company Nl Uranium

98 Zabaikal Mining Corporation Ltd. Uranium

http://www.minegate.com/dsp_search.asp?company=mine&mineral=48&recrange=30&page=4 (20030611)

1 Absolut Resources Corp. Gold, Platinum, Uranium
2 Acclaim Exploration NL Gold, Uranium
3 Afrikander Lease Ltd. Gold, Uranium
4 Alberta Star Mining Corp Uranium
5 Alliance Energy Ltd. Gold, Copper, Uranium
6 Anaconda Uranium Corporation Uranium
7 Anglo American plc Gold, Platinum, Palladium, Diamonds, Niobium, Vanadium, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Zinc, Coal, Uranium, Mineral Sands, Phosphate, Potash
8 Anglogold, Limited Gold, Uranium
9 Anglovaal Mining Limited - Avmin Gold, Platinum, Palladium, Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Uranium
10 Ashton Mining Limited. Diamonds, Rare Earths, Uranium
11 Aztec Resources Limited Uranium 12 Balmain Resources Pty Ltd. Uranium 13 Bokum Resources Corp. Uranium 14 Cameco Corporation Gold, Uranium 15 Canning Resources Pty Ltd (Sub of Rio Tinto) Uranium 16 Cassiar Resources Inc. Magnesium, Uranium 17 Central Coal & Coke Corp Coal, Uranium 18 Central Pacific Minerals NL. Oil Shale, Uranium 19 China National Nuclear Corporation Uranium 20 Cline Mining Corporation Gold, Vanadium, Uranium 21 Cogema Group (Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires) Uranium 22 Cogema Resources (Canada) Inc. Uranium 23 Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA) Uranium 24 Compania Nationala a Uraniului S.A. Uranium 25 Consolidated Trillion Resources Ltd. Gold, Platinum, Diamonds, Cobalt, Copper, Nickel, Uranium 26 Cotter Corp. Silver, Tungston, Vanadium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Molybdenum, Nickel, Zinc, Uranium, Limestone, Selenium 27 Crested Corp. Gold, Molybdenum, Uranium 28 Denison Energy Inc Uranium 29 Diamo s.p. Uranium 30 Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited Gold, Uranium 31 East Rand Gold and Uranium Company Ltd Gold, Uranium 32 Empresa Nacional de Urânio, S.A. (ENU) Uranium 33 Empresa Nacional del Uranio S.A. (ENUSA) Uranium 34 Energy Resources of Australia Limited Uranium 35 Equinox Resources NL. Gold, Copper, Uranium 36 Everest Exploration, Inc. Uranium 37 Far West Mining Ltd Gold, Silver, Diamonds, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Uranium 38 Formation Capital Corporation Silver, Cobalt, Lead, Zinc, Uranium 39 General Atomics Uranium 40 Giralia Resources NL. Gold, Copper, Uranium 41 Glencar Mining PLC Gold, Lead, Zinc, Uranium 42 Goldstream Mining NL. Gold, Uranium 43 Great Western Gold Corp. Gold, Diamonds, Rare Earths, Uranium 44 Haddington Resources Limited Gold, Tantalum, Uranium 45 Heathgate Resources Pty. Uranium 46 Hornby Bay Exploration Limited Gold, Diamonds, Uranium 47 Indústrias Nucleares do Brasil Uranium 48 International Uranium (USA) Corporation Uranium 49 International Uranium Corporation Uranium 50 JNR Resources Inc. Uranium 51 KazAtomProm Uranium 52 Kennecott Uranium Company (Sub of Rio Tinto) Uranium 53 Magnesium International Limited Magnesium, Uranium 54 Metalline Mining Company Silver, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Uranium 55 Musgrave Block Holdings Ltd Uranium 56 Navoi Mining and Metallurgical Complex Gold, Fluorspar, Uranium 57 North Limited Gold, Copper, Iron, Zinc, Uranium 58 Northern Continental Resources Inc Uranium 59 PNC Exploration (Australia) Pty Ltd Uranium 60 Pacific Amber Resources Ltd. Gold, Uranium, Technology 61 Palabora Mining Company Limited Zircon, Copper, Magnetite, Uranium, Vermiculite 62 Paladin Resources NL. Gold, Copper, Uranium 63 Pioneer Metals Corporation Gemstones-other, Uranium 64 Platoro West Incorporated Gold, Silver, Tungston, Vanadium, Lead, Zinc, Uranium 65 Priargunskoye Production Mining Chemical Association Uranium 66 Reefton Mining NL. Gold, Silver, Diamonds, Tantalum, Tungston, Copper, Lead, Tin, Zinc, Uranium 67 Resolute Limited. Gold, Uranium 68 Richards Bay Minerals Zircon, Titanium, Iron, Uranium 69 Rio Algom Limited Gold, Silver, Copper, Lead, Molybdenum, Zinc, Coal, Uranium 70 Rio Tinto Ltd Gold, Silver, Gemstones-other, Aluminum, Titanium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Zinc, Uranium 71 Rössing Uranium Ltd Uranium 72 Sedimentary Holdings Ltd Gold, Uranium 73 Shane Resources Ltd. Gold, Diamonds, Zinc, Uranium 74 Southern Cross Exploration NL. Gold, Diamonds, Uranium 75 Southern Cross Resources Australia Pty Ltd Uranium 76 Southern Cross Resources Inc. Uranium 77 Strathmore Minerals Corp Uranium 78 Summit Resources NL Gold, Copper, Uranium 79 Thunderbolt Resources NL (See now Admiralty Resources) Gold, Silver, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Uranium 80 Titan Resources NL Cobalt, Copper, Nickel, Uranium 81 Tyhee Development Corp. Gold, Silver, Bismuth, Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Uranium 82 U.S. Energy Corp. Gold, Silver, Molybdenum, Uranium 83 UEX Corporation Uranium 84 Uranerzbergbau GmbH Uranium 85 Urangesellschaft mbH Uranium 86 Uranium Corporation of India Ltd. Uranium 87 Uranium Power Corporation Uranium 88 Uranium Producers in Minegate Uranium 89 Uranium Resources, Inc. Uranium 90 Uravan Minerals Inc. Platinum, Palladium, Zircon, Titanium, Uranium 91 Utah-Idaho Consolidated Uranium, Inc.. Uranium 92 Vostochny Integrated Mining and Concentrating Plant (VostGOK) Uranium 93 WM Mining International Ltd. Uranium 94 WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation) Pty Ltd Copper, Uranium 95 WMC Limited Gold, Platinum, Palladium, Silver, Aluminum, Copper, Nickel, Uranium, Talc 96 World Wide Minerals Ltd. Gold, Uranium 97 Yuendumu Mining Company Nl Uranium 98 Zabaikal Mining Corporation Ltd. Uranium http://www.minegate.com/dsp_search.asp?company=mine&mineral=48&recrange=30&page=4 (consulted 20030611)

21:00 2002-05-15



Retired general cleared of intending to harm national security



A Tel Aviv court yesterday convicted retired Brig. Gen. Yitzhak Yaakov, 76, former head of the IDF's weapons development authority, of giving classified information to unauthorized people. But the court acquitted Yaakov of a more serious charge of conveying the information with intent to harm national security. Defense sources charged that Yaakov's actions were done knowingly and were more serious than those of convicted nuclear spy, Mordechai Vanunu.



In their ruling, the court judges said they were "convinced that the accused devoted most of his years to strengthening the nation's security, and did not intend to harm it." Even so, Yaakov "neglected his duty to safeguard the most secret and sensitive information that was entrusted to him." Yaakov, who has been held under round-the-clock supervision since his arrest in March last year, is liable to a prison term of up to 15 years.



"I thank the court for the verdict," Yaakov said in response. Yaakov said he was "not angry with the security establishment" over the trial.



According to media reports, the charges against Yaakov stemmed from two books he wrote - a memoir and novel - that according to the prosecution, contained real data. In 1995, Yaakov reportedly gave publishers in the United States the draft of the novel and a letter that said, "The book is based on real life events but was written as fiction in order to avoid the necessity of approval from Israeli authorities."



In 1998, Yaakov began writing his memoirs, and gave copies of the manuscript to different friends, despite having been explicitly warned by members of the security establishment that the book contained classified information and that its publication would harm the nation's security. In another incident, Yaakov revealed information in a television interview that was banned by the military censor.



In the court's ruling, Justice Amiram Binyamini wrote that none of the people were cleared to view or read the classified information. Yaakov's testimony was "full of inconsistencies regarding certain key points and implausible explanations on some issues," the court said. Still, the court accepted Yaakov's contention that he had not intended to harm Israel with his actions.



The court rejected attempts by the prosecution to draw a parallel between Yaakov's case and that of Vanunu. Vanunu, who disclosed details about Israel's nuclear program to the Sunday Times in 1986 and is now serving an 18-year sentence, knowingly gave Israel's nuclear secrets to a foreign newspaper, while Yaakov's manuscript was never published, Binyamini wrote. Yaakov's "state of mind" was not to harm Israel, and he had consulted with security officials to ask how he should proceed.



"The story of Yaakov is more serious than that of Vanunu from all aspects," a senior security source told Maariv after the court decision. Vanunu "was not warned three times, and that's the big difference," the source said.



The security source said that the court had, in effect, accepted all of the prosecution's charges. Yaakov had used "every trick in the book" to circumvent the military authorities. He did so knowingly, and over the course of years, despite the repeated warnings. He conveyed the most secret information to people overseas, in order to avoid Israeli authorities. We only just managed to stop him. If this information had been published, what would he have said? That his intentions were good? Maybe Vanunu had good intentions as well?"



Security officials in the Ministry of Defense harshly criticized the court's decision, Yediot Aharonot reported. "It is amazing that the court determined that Yaakov acted knowingly, and attempted to circumvent Israeli authorities, yet still decided that there was no proof that he intentionally committed these crimes," they said.



Ellis Shuman

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2002/05/15/28801.html

BERNSTEIN Jeremy (1996), Hitler's Uranium Club: The Secret Recordings at Farm Hall by Jeremy Bernstein, 397 pages, American Institute of Physics.

Review score: ** out of *****

The development of the atomic bomb by the Allies during the Second World War was one of the critical events in human history. The world today would be unimaginable if the Nazis had developed the bomb first and then used it on London.

The fact that history did not follow this dark and horrifying course has been the subject of a great deal of study. Before World War II, German science, especially physics, was preeminent. The Allies knew that Werner Heisenberg, one of the great scientific minds of the twentith century, was the head of the German nuclear effort. During the war, those working on the Manhattan project, many of whom had known Heisenberg and his colleagues before the war, were convinced that they were in a close race with the Germans to develop an atomic bomb. As the Allies advanced on Germany, the Alsos Mission, whose scientific director was Samuel Goudsmit, was sent to Europe to gain information about the progress of the German nuclear efforts. In France, at the University of Strasbourg, Goudsmit was able to examine the papers left behind by one of Heisenberg's colleagues, Carl Friedrich Von Wezsacker. Goudsmit discovered that the Germans had made little progress toward the construction of an atomic bomb. In fact, as it turned out, the Germans had made little progress obtaining a fission chain reaction and they never constructed a working nuclear reactor, which is the first step to producing plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Why, when the Germans seemed to have such a head start, did they make so little progress toward an atomic bomb? After the war, Von Wezsacker, who took a position at the Max Planck Institute, claimed that the German nuclear project made so little progress because their heart was not in it. They did not want Hitler to have the bomb. In fact, Von Wezsacker condemed the allies for constructing such a horrible weapon, when the Germans were, he claimed, only working on a nuclear reactor for power generation.

In Thomas Powers' 1993 book Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb, Powers makes a similar argument about Heisenberg's motivations. According to Powers' account, although Heisenberg was offered prestigious research positions in the United States, he chose to stay in Germany and share the "German fate". But he never really wanted Nazi Germany to have the atomic bomb.

After the Nazi defeat, ten physicists, including Heisenber, Von Weizsacker and Otto Hahn (who later won the Nobel prize as the co-discoverer of nuclear fission) were interned for six months at an English estate known as Farm Hall, located near Cambridge. By collecting the major players in German nuclear physics, the British and Americans kept them out of the hands of the Russians. They also made sure that until the atomic bomb was used, atomic information would be kept largely in American hands. While at Farm Hall the German scientists were well treated and probably ate better than their families back in Germany.

At Farm Hall each of them was assigned a prisoner-of-war batman to look after his needs. There was a tennis court and a piano for Heisenberg. the bedrooms were paneled and the food was good. What none of them seem to have realized, at least initially, was that the estate had been wired to record conversations.

Selected conversations were transcribed and circulated to British and American officials, including General Leslie Groves, who headed the Manhattan project. Although the existence of the Farm Hall transcripts had been known of for some time, it was not until early 1992 that they were finally made available to the public. In Hitler's Uranium Club Jeremy Bernstein provides an edited and annotated version of these transcripts. Bernstein also provides a detailed prologue, which discusses the history of the German bomb and his interpretation of the transcripts.

The Farm Hall transcripts, taken in conjunction with captured German documents, paints a very different picture than the one put forth by Von Weizacker and in Powers' Heisenber's War. The leading scientists in Germany had the opportinity to accept positions in America, before America entered the war. Those who remained in Germany fell into one of three catagories: they were Nazis, like Nobel Prize winner Johannes Stark, they could not leave, for what ever reason, or they were selectively blind to the regime around them and its implications. This did not mean that they were ignorant of Nazi terror and murder.

Heisenberg: During the war I had five calls for help in cases where people were murdered by our people. One was Soloman, Hoffman's son-in law. I could do nothing in his case as he had already been killed when I got the letter. The second one was Cousyns the Belgian cosmic ray man; he disappeared in a Gestapo camp and I couldn't even find out through Himmler's staff whether he was alive or dead. I presume he is dead too. Then there was the mathematician Cammaille; I tried to do something about him through Sethel but it was no good he was shot. Then from among the Polish professors there was a logistician with a Jewish name --- and then with the other Poles the following happened: his name was Schouder, a mathematician. He had written to me and I had put out feelers in order to see what could be done. I wrote to Scholz who had something to do with Poland. [...] I heard nothing more about Schouder and I have now been told that he was murdered.

The evidence of the Farm Hall transcripts is morally damning. Heisenberg and his colleagues knew about the murder going on around them, but they still worked on the German nuclear program. They did not build a nuclear weapon because they did not know how. Although Heisenberg was a gifted theoretical physicist, it was widely known at the time that he was a poor experimentalist and he had no experience with large scale scientific projects. Heisenberg and his colleagues also made several critical mistakes early in the project. For example, they tried using graphite as a nuclear moderator. However, the graphite was impure and absorbed neutrons, rather than slowing them down, which is necessary for the controlled nuclear fission in a reactor. Heisenberg also insisted on using reactor designs that worked well on the chalk board, but were experimentally a disaster. The Farm Hill transcripts and related documents do not point to any evidence that Heisenberg and his colleagues knew how to build a working reactor and but chose not to for moral reasons.

The American nuclear program consumed two billion dollars, which at that time was a vast sum of money. Tens of thousands of people worked on the design and manufacture of the first nuclear weapons, although a much smaller number actually know what they were building. In contrast the German effort was miniscule. In part this was because until the German army started to bog down on the Easter Front, they thought that the war was won. No "super weapons" were needed. Later in the war, the German scientists told officials that the construction of a nuclear bomb could not be completed in the near term. This was not because they were misleading their Nazi masters, but because this was what they actually believed. After the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and it became clear that the Americans were far ahead of the Germans, Heisenberg and his colleagues were shocked.

Bernstein is one of the best popular science writers and I have enjoyed several of his books. He is a professor of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology and he does a good job of explaining the technical problems encountered constructing a nuclear weapon. For the general reader, the most interesting part of Hitler's Uranium Club will be Bernstein's prologue. Although Bernstein has annotated and classified the Farm Hall transcripts, I found that they make tedious reading, and skimmed them. But for the serious student this book will be an important resource.

Ian Kaplan - 4/96

http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/uclub.htm

Carbonell 2002: 99

South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty

(Treaty of Rarotonga)

Summary

The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which is also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga, establishes a nuclear weapon free zone in the South Pacific. The United States, along with the United Kingdom and France, signed the three Protocols to the Treaty on March 25, 1996, at a ceremony in Suva, Fiji.

The Treaty prohibits the testing, manufacture, acquisition, and stationing of nuclear explosive devices in the territory of Parties to the Treaty and the dumping of radioactive wastes at sea within the zone. The Treaty also requires all parties to apply full scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to all their peaceful nuclear activities. A comprehensive control system has been established to verify compliance with the Treaty and there are mechanisms, including provision for mandatory on-site inspection, to assure compliance.

The Treaty affirms the right of each party to decide for itself whether to allow visits by foreign ships and aircraft to its ports and airfields. It also explicitly upholds the freedom of navigation on the high seas and passage through territorial waters guaranteed by international law.



The Treaty has three protocols. Under Protocol 1 the United States, France, and the United Kingdom are required to apply the basic provisions of the Treaty to their respective territories in the zone established by the Treaty. The Treaty will therefore apply to American Samoa and Jarvis Island. Under Protocol 2, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and China agree not to use or threaten to use nuclear explosive devices against any party to the Treaty or to each others' territories located within the zone. Under Protocol 3, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and China agree not to test nuclear explosive devices within the zone established by the Treaty.



The Treaty was opened for signature on August 6, 1985, in Rarotonga, the largest island in the Cook Islands. All members of the South Pacific Forum are eligible to accede to the Treaty. The Treaty entered into force December 11, 1986. The protocols were opened for signature on August 8, 1986, in Suva, Fiji. All five nuclear weapon states have signed the Protocols for which they are eligible. The United States, the United Kingdom and France have signed all three, whereas China and Russia are Party to Protocols 2 and 3 of the Treaty, but did not accede to Protocol 1, since neither state has territories within the zone.



The Treaty is in force in the following states and freely associated governments: Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Western Samoa. Tonga signed the Treaty on August 2, 1996, but has not yet deposited its instrument of ratification.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1985/850806-rarotonga-sum.html (20030909)

One of the articles in The Foundations Of Peace (IC#4)
Originally published in Autumn 1983 on page 8
Copyright (c)1983, 1997 by Context Institute
THE HUMAN TENDENCY toward, and preparations for, open warfare are certainly the most spectacular obstacles to peace, but they are not the only challenges we face. For much of the world’s population, hunger, not war, is the pressing issue, and it is hard to imagine a genuine peace that did not overcome our current global pattern of extensive poverty in the midst of plenty.

Hunger and poverty are two prime examples of what is described as “structural violence,” that is, physical and psychological harm that results from exploitive and unjust social, political and economic systems. It is something that most of us know is going on, some of us have experienced, but in its starker forms, it is sufficiently distant from most North American lives that it is often hard to get a good perspective on it. I’ve come across an approach that seems to help provide that perspective, and I’d like to describe it.

How significant is structural violence? How does one measure the impact of injustice? While this may sound like an impossibly difficult question, Gernot Kohler and Norman Alcock (in Journal of Peace Research, 1976, 13, pp. 343-356) have come up with a surprisingly simple method for estimating the grosser forms of structural violence, at least at an international level. The specific question they ask is, how many extra deaths occur each year due to the unequal distribution of wealth between countries?

To understand their approach, we will need to plunge into some global statistics. It will help to start with the relationship between Life Expectancy (LE) and Gross National Product Per Person (GNP/p) that is shown in the following figure.



Each dot in this figure stands for one country with its LE and GNP/p for the year 1979. All together, 135 countries are represented (data from Ruth Sivard’s World Military and Social Expenditures 1982, World Priorities, Box 1003, Leesburg VA 22075, $4). Kohler and Alcock used a similar figure based on data for 1965, and I’ll compare the 1965 data with the 1979 data later in this article. Except for a few oil exporting countries (like Libya) that have unusual combinations of high GNPs and low Life Expectancies, the data follows a consistent pattern shown by the curve. Among the “poor” countries (with GNP/p below about $2400 per person per year), life expectancy is relatively low and increases rapidly with increasing GNP/p. Among the “rich” countries, life expectancy is consistently high and is relatively unaffected by GNP.

The dividing line between these two groups turns out to also be the world average GNP per person. The value of the life expectancy curve at that point (for 1979) is 70 years. Thus, other things being equal, if the world’s wealth was distributed equally among the nations, every country would have a life expectancy of 70 years. This value is surprisingly close to the average life expectancy for the industrial countries (72 years), and is even not that far below the maximum national life expectancy of 76 years (Iceland, Japan, and Sweden).

Kohler and Alcock use this egalitarian model as a standard to compare the actual world situation against. The procedure is as follows. The actual number of deaths in any country can be estimated by dividing the population (P) by the life expectancy (LE). The difference between the actual number of deaths and the number of deaths that would occur under egalitarian conditions is thus P/LE – P/70. For example, in 1979 India had a population of 677 million and a life expectancy of 52 years. Thus India’s actual death rate was 13 million while if the life expectancy had been 70, the rate would have been 9.7 million. The difference of 3.3 million thus provides an estimate of the number of extra deaths.

Calculating this difference for each country and then adding them up gives the number of extra deaths worldwide due to the unequal distribution of resources. The result for 1965 was 14 million, while for 1979 the number had declined to 11 million. (China, with a quarter of the world’s population, is responsible for 3/4 of this drop since it raised its life expectancy from 50 in 1965 to 64 in 1979.)

How legitimate is it to ascribe these deaths to the structural violence of human institutions, and not just to the variability of nature? Perhaps the best in-depth study of structural violence comes from the Institute for Food and Development Policy (1885 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94103). What they find throughout the Third World is that the problems of poverty and hunger often date back hundreds of years to some conquest – by colonial forces or otherwise. The victors became the ruling class and the landholders, pushing the vast majority either on to poor ground or into being landless laborers. Taxes, rentals, and the legal system were all structured to make sure that the poor stayed poor. The same patterns continue today.

Additional support is provided by the evidence in the above figure, which speaks for itself. Also, according to Sivard, 97% of the people in the Third World live under repressive governments, with almost half of all Third World countries run by military dominated governments. Finally, as a point of comparison, Ehrlich and Ehrlich (Population, Environment, and Resources, 1972, p72) estimate between 10 and 20 million deaths per year due to starvation and malnutrition. If their estimates are correct, our estimates may even be too low.

Some comparisons will help to put these figures in perspective. The total number of deaths from all causes in 1965 was 62 million, so these estimates indicate that 23% of all deaths were due to structural violence. By 1979 the fraction had dropped to 15%. While it is heartening to see this improvement, the number of deaths is staggeringly large, dwarfing any other form of violence other than nuclear war. For example, the level of structural violence is 60 times greater than the average number of battle related deaths per year since 1965 (Sivard 1982). It is 1.5 times as great as the yearly average number of civilian and battle field deaths during the 6 years of World War II. Every 4 days, it is the equivalent of another Hiroshima.

Perhaps the most hopeful aspect of this whole tragic situation is that essentially everyone in the present system has become a loser. The plight of the starving is obvious, but the exploiters don’t have much to show for their efforts either – not compared to the quality of life they could have in a society without the tensions generated by this exploitation. Especially at a national level, what the rich countries need now is not so much more material wealth, but the opportunity to live in a world at peace. The rich and the poor, with the help of modern technology and weaponry, have become each others’ prisoners.

July 18, 2017
ARMY OF OCCUPATION by Dervla Murphy

Originally published by The Irish Times, 1983.

ON OCTOBER 20th, 1944, Norman Lewis wrote in his journal, “A year among the Italians has converted me to such an admiration for their humanity and culture that were I given the chance to be born again, Italy would be the country of my choice.” This explains why “Naples 44” gives an overall impression of beauty, dignity, mellowness, graciousness; the hallmarks of indestructible traditions serenely surviving the barbarisms of yet another war. In his journal Norman Lewis recorded every sort of brutality, corruption, chicanery, depravity and squalor. Yet he never allowed himself to be depressed by his experiences as a field security officer.

Always he remained aware of immemorial controlling rituals below the surface, of wit glinting through the most macabre and sordid “deals”, of exotic codes of honour and courage giving a bizarre—and not entirely phone—aura of respectability to the most outrageous Mafia manoeuvrings. Always, too, he responded to people as individuals; so his pages vibrate with the entries and exits of a preposterous yet wholly credible cast of happy rascals, melancholy eccentrics, lascivious noblewomen, licentious soldiery, keen-witted child-crooks and suave Black Marketeers who might be anything from senior officers of the Allied Military Government to Vatican prelates to Community Party bosses.

Of course for an ordinary decent Englishman it was all a bit confusing at times, especially as Field Security personnel were allowed an astonishing autonomy which could put them in uncommonly awkward situations. They were expected to combat corruption only in so far as it affected the operations of the Allied Armies. But often it was hard to know where to draw the line; or, indeed, whether it was would be prudent to draw any line. Towards the end of his year in the Naples area, Norman Lewis wrote sadly: I personally have been rigid when I should have been flexible. Here the police—corupt and tyrannical as they are—and the civil population play a game together, but the rules are complex and I do not understand them, and through lack of this understanding I lose respect.”

“Naples ‘44” forces us to dwell on the physical and moral dreadfulness of what is now quaintly called “convention war”, to distinguish it from that sophisticated nuclear war—all new and different and excitingly unconventional—at present being considered as a “possible option” by the Pentagon.

On September 11th, 1943, at Salerno, Norman Lewis learned that Americans of the 45th Division had been ordered to take no German prisoners and to beat to death with their rifle butts any German who tried to surrender. Mr Lewis wrote that evening: I find this almost incredible.” A fortnight later he was relieved to noticed that some of the Americans were “beginning to question the ethics of this order. One man who surrendered to a German tank crew was simply stripped of his weapons and turned loose because he could not be carried in the tank, and as a result he is naturally a propagandist for what he accepts as the general high standard of German humanity.”

As German tanks rolled towards the Allied position at Salerno, the American officers stealthily deserted, abandoning their men, who soon succumbed to total panic and “in the belief that our position had been infiltrated by German infantry began to shoot each other and there were blood-chilling screams from men hit by their own bullets … Official history will in due time set to work to dress-up this part of the action at Salerno with what dignity it can. What we saw was ineptitude and cowardice spreading down from the command, and this resulted in chaos.”

Norman Lewis also records his compatriots’ misdeeds. At Secuirty Headquarters in Salno, he saw a British officer interrogating an Italian civilian by battering his head with a chair—“a treatment which the Italian, his face a mask of blood, suffered with stoicism.” The officer then called in a private of the Hampshires and asked him, “Would you like to take this man away, and shoot him?” The private spat on his hands and replied, “I don’t mind if I do, sir.” Norman Lewis described this as “the most revolting espied I have ever seen since joining the forces.” But of course there was much worse to come.

When the French colonial troops took a town or village, they raped the entire population—old men and children as well as women of all ages. Often two Moroccans assaulted a woman simultaneously, one committing sodomy while the other had normal intercourse. Many victims suffered damage to the genitals, uterus and rectum. At Ceccano, the British had to build a guarded camp to protect the Italian from the Moors—many of whom had by then joined other deserters, from all the Allied Armies, in terrorising areas far behind the line of battle.

Norman Lewis wondered, “What is it that turns an ordinary decent Moroccan peasant into the most terrible of sexual psychopaths as soon as he becomes a soldier?” A few days later he was recording Italian vengeance: Five Moors were given food or wine containing some paralysing poison. While fully conscious they were castrated, and then beheaded. The decapitation was entrusted to pubescent boys to prove their worth, but the boys lacked both the skill and strength to carry the task out in a speedy manner.”

* * * * *

“Naples 44” frequently reminds us that modern man is the most dangerous of all animals. We who lead sheltered lives can at times delude ourselves that civilisation is winning out, that we of the 20th century are not as our forefathers were—delighting in public hangings, and all that. But once war has removed the restraints imposed by modern society, most men still behave like the hordes of Attila the Hun, whether they be Guards officers or Moroccan peasants. Where we really have advanced is in the devising of national international structures for the maintenance of laws and order. And perhaps one day, if we survive long enough, we’ll learn how to use those structures effectively, to avoid war.

The deadly element, 1939-78 (Published by Macmillan, 1979)

Research material gathered by Bickel for his 1979 book on the development of the atomic bomb. It includes published material on uranium and nuclear energy, journal articles, cassettes of interviews with Glenn Seaborg (discoverer of plutonium) and Otto Frisch (nuclear scientist), notes of interviews with Frisch and Sir Mark Oliphant, photographs, and a profile on Martin Klaproth (in German). Included also are copies of some French government and industry correspondence and of British government material taken from the PRO (CAB 21 documents). The PRO documents are in chronological order and date from 1939.

The original correspondence includes letters from Glenn Seaborg and Sir Mark Oliphant.

http://www.nla.gov.au/ms/findaids/8432.html

USS Scorpion verdwijnt spoorloos tijdens een lange onderzeese patrouille. Het wrak wordt later teruggevonden 500 mijl ten zuidwesten van de Azoren. De onderzeeër was in twee stukken gebroken. Waarschijnlijk is de onderzeeër tijdens een navigatiefout tegen een onderzeese berg aangevaren.

http://www.txoilgas.com/589.html

The final voyage of the Scorpion

The last mission of the nuclear submarine USS Scorpion included various ports of call and maneuvers in the Mediterranean Sea before its ill-fated return voyage across the Atlantic.

Feb. 15, 1968: Scorpion departed Norfolk, Va.

March 1: Rota, Spain

March 10: Taranto, Italy

March 23: Augusta Bay, Sicily

April 10: Naples, Italy

May 16: Rota, Spain

May 21: Final radio contact

May 22: Scorpion sank with 99 crew members.



The USS Scorpion

Crew: 12 officers and 87 enlisted men

Launched: Dec. 29, 1959

Length: 252 feet

Displacement (weight): 3,513 tons

Speed: 36 knots submerged

A Soviet submarine, code-named K129, sank in the Pacific at a depth of almost 20,000 feet. A US sub, the Halibut, found the Soviet vessel 6 months later and recovered 3 missiles with nuclear warheads, Soviet code books and an encryption machine. In 1974 the CIA attempted to recover the sub. A 100 foot section was pulled in by the Glomar Explorer with 2 nuclear tipped torpedoes and the bodies of 6 Russian sailors.

www.decades.com (20030923)

Spoken: February 24, 1965
First Published:
Source: The Che Reader, Ocean Press, © 2005.
Translated: unknown.
Transcription/Markup: Ocean Press/Brian Baggins

This speech was delivered at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro-Asian Solidarity. The conference, held in Algiers, Algeria, was attended by representatives from 63 African and Asian governments, as well as 19 national liberation movements. The meeting was opened by Algerian President Ahmed Ben Bella. Cuba was invited as an observer to the conference, and Guevara served on its presiding committee.

Cuba is here at this conference to speak on behalf of the peoples of Latin America.[19] As we have emphasized on other occasions, Cuba also speaks as an underdeveloped country as well as one that is building socialism.

It is not by accident that our delegation is permitted to give its opinion here, in the circle of the peoples of Asia and Africa.[20] A common aspiration unites us in our march toward the future: the defeat of imperialism. A common past of struggle against the same enemy has united us along the road.

This is an assembly of peoples in struggle, and the struggle is developing on two equally important fronts that require all our efforts. The struggle against imperialism, for liberation from colonial or neocolonial shackles, which is being carried out by means of political weapons, arms, or a combination of the two, is not separate from the struggle against backwardness and poverty. Both are stages on the same road leading toward the creation of a new society of justice and plenty.

It is imperative to take political power and to get rid of the oppressor classes. But then the second stage of the struggle, which may be even more difficult than the first, must be faced.

Ever since monopoly capital took over the world, it has kept the greater part of humanity in poverty, dividing all the profits among the group of the most powerful countries. The standard of living in those countries is based on the extreme poverty of our countries. To raise the living standards of the underdeveloped nations, therefore, we must fight against imperialism. And each time a country is torn away from the imperialist tree, it is not only a partial battle won against the main enemy but it also contributes to the real weakening of that enemy, and is one more step toward the final victory. There are no borders in this struggle to the death. We cannot be indifferent to what happens anywhere in the world, because a victory by any country over imperialism is our victory, just as any country's defeat is a defeat for all of us. The practice of proletarian internationalism is not only a duty for the peoples struggling for a better future, it is also an inescapable necessity.

If the imperialist enemy, the United States or any other, carries out its attack against the underdeveloped peoples and the socialist countries, elementary logic determines the need for an alliance between the underdeveloped peoples and the socialist countries. If there were no other uniting factor, the common enemy should be enough.[21]

Of course, these alliances cannot be made spontaneously, without discussions, without birth pangs, which sometimes can be painful. We said that each time a country is liberated it is a defeat for the world imperialist system. But we must agree that the break is not achieved by the mere act of proclaiming independence or winning an armed victory in a revolution. It is achieved when imperialist economic domination over a people is brought to an end. Therefore, it is a matter of vital interest to the socialist countries for a real break to take place. And it is our international duty, a duty determined by our guiding ideology, to contribute our efforts to make this liberation as rapid and deep-going as possible.

A conclusion must be drawn from all this: the socialist countries must help pay for the development of countries now starting out on the road to liberation. We state it this way with no intention whatsoever of blackmail or dramatics, nor are we looking for an easy way to get closer to the Afro- Asian peoples; it is our profound conviction. Socialism cannot exist without a change in consciousness resulting in a new fraternal attitude toward humanity, both at an individual level, within the societies where socialism is being built or has been built, and on a world scale, with regard to all peoples suffering from imperialist oppression.

We believe the responsibility of aiding dependent countries must be approached in such a spirit. There should be no more talk about developing mutually beneficial trade based on prices forced on the backward countries by the law of value and the international relations of unequal exchange that result from the law of value.[22]

How can it be “mutually beneficial” to sell at world market prices the raw materials that cost the underdeveloped countries immeasurable sweat and suffering, and to buy at world market prices the machinery produced in today's big automated factories?

If we establish that kind of relation between the two groups of nations, we must agree that the socialist countries are, in a certain way, accomplices of imperialist exploitation. It can be argued that the amount of exchange with the underdeveloped countries is an insignificant part of the foreign trade of the socialist countries. That is very true, but it does not eliminate the immoral character of that exchange.

The socialist countries have the moral duty to put an end to their tacit complicity with the exploiting countries of the West. The fact that the trade today is small means nothing. In 1959 Cuba only occasionally sold sugar to some socialist bloc countries, usually through English brokers or brokers of other nationalities. Today 80 percent of Cuba's trade is with that area. All its vital supplies come from the socialist camp, and in fact it has joined that camp. We cannot say that this entrance into the socialist camp was brought about merely by the increase in trade. Nor was the increase in trade brought about by the destruction of the old structures and the adoption of the socialist form of development. Both sides of the question intersect and are interrelated.

We did not start out on the road that ends in communism foreseeing all steps as logically predetermined by an ideology advancing toward a fixed goal. The truths of socialism, plus the raw truths of imperialism, forged our people and showed them the path that we have now taken consciously. To advance toward their own complete liberation, the peoples of Asia and Africa must take the same path. They will follow it sooner or later, regardless of what modifying adjective their socialism may take today.

For us there is no valid definition of socialism other than the abolition of the exploitation of one human being by another. As long as this has not been achieved, if we think we are in the stage of building socialism but instead of ending exploitation the work of suppressing it comes to a halt — or worse, is reversed — then we cannot even speak of building socialism.[23] We have to prepare conditions so that our brothers and sisters can directly and consciously take the path of the complete abolition of exploitation, but we cannot ask them to take that path if we ourselves are accomplices in that exploitation. If we were asked what methods are used to establish fair prices, we could not answer because we do not know the full scope of the practical problems involved. All we know is that, after political discussions, the Soviet Union and Cuba have signed agreements advantageous to us, by means of which we will sell five million tons of sugar at prices set above those of the so-called free world sugar market. The People's Republic of China also pays those prices in buying from us.

This is only a beginning. The real task consists of setting prices that will permit development. A great shift in ideas will be involved in changing the order of international relations. Foreign trade should not determine policy, but should, on the contrary, be subordinated to a fraternal policy toward the peoples.

Let us briefly analyze the problem of long-term credits for developing basic industries. Frequently we find that beneficiary countries attempt to establish an industrial base disproportionate to their present capacity. The products will not be consumed domestically and the country's reserves will be risked in the undertaking.

Our thinking is as follows: The investments of the socialist states in their own territory come directly out of the state budget, and are recovered only by use of the products throughout the entire manufacturing process, down to the finished goods. We propose that some thought be given to the possibility of making these kinds of investments in the underdeveloped countries. In this way we could unleash an immense force, hidden in our continents, which have been exploited miserably but never aided in their development. We could begin a new stage of a real international division of labor, based not on the history of what has been done up to now but rather on the future history of what can be done.

The states in whose territories the new investments are to be made would have all the inherent rights of sovereign property over them with no payment or credit involved. But they would be obligated to supply agreed-upon quantities of products to the investor countries for a certain number of years at set prices.

The method for financing the local portion of expenses incurred by a country receiving investments of this kind also deserves study. The supply of marketable goods on long-term credits to the governments of underdeveloped countries could be one form of aid not requiring the contribution of freely convertible hard currency.

Another difficult problem that must be solved is the mastering of technology. [24] The shortage of technicians in underdeveloped countries is well known to us all. Educational institutions and teachers are lacking. Sometimes we lack a real understanding of our needs and have not made the decision to carry out a top-priority policy of technical, cultural and ideological development.

The socialist countries should supply the aid to organize institutions for technical education. They should insist on the great importance of this and should supply technical cadres to fill the present need. It is necessary to further emphasize this last point. The technicians who come to our countries must be exemplary. They are comrades who will face a strange environment, often one hostile to technology, with a different language and totally different customs. The technicians who take on this difficult task must be, first of all, communists in the most profound and noble sense of the word. With this single quality, plus a modicum of flexibility and organization, wonders can be achieved.

We know this can be done. Fraternal countries have sent us a certain number of technicians who have done more for the development of our country than 10 institutes, and have contributed more to our friendship than 10 ambassadors or 100 diplomatic receptions.

If we could achieve the above-listed points — and if all the technology of the advanced countries could be placed within reach of the underdeveloped countries, unhampered by the present system of patents, which prevents the spread of inventions of different countries — we would progress a great deal in our common task.

Imperialism has been defeated in many partial battles. But it remains a considerable force in the world. We cannot expect its final defeat save through effort and sacrifice on the part of us all.

The proposed set of measures, however, cannot be implemented unilaterally. The socialist countries should help pay for the development of the underdeveloped countries, we agree. But the underdeveloped countries must also steel their forces to embark resolutely on the road of building a new society — whatever name one gives it — where the machine, an instrument of labor, is no longer an instrument for the exploitation of one human being by another. Nor can the confidence of the socialist countries be expected by those who play at balancing between capitalism and socialism, trying to use each force as a counterweight in order to derive certain advantages from such competition. A new policy of absolute seriousness should govern the relations between the two groups of societies. It is worth emphasizing once again that the means of production should preferably be in the hands of the state, so that the marks of exploitation may gradually disappear. Furthermore, development cannot be left to complete improvisation. It is necessary to plan the construction of the new society. Planning is one of the laws of socialism, and without it, socialism would not exist. Without correct planning there can be no adequate guarantee that all the various sectors of a country's economy will combine harmoniously to take the leaps forward that our epoch demands.

Planning cannot be left as an isolated problem of each of our small countries, distorted in their development, possessors of some raw materials or producers of some manufactured or semimanufactured goods, but lacking in most others.[25] From the outset, planning should take on a certain regional dimension in order to intermix the various national economies, and thus bring about integration on a basis that is truly of mutual benefit. We believe the road ahead is full of dangers, not dangers conjured up or foreseen in the distant future by some superior mind but palpable dangers deriving from the realities besetting us. The fight against colonialism has reached its final stages, but in the present era colonial status is only a consequence of imperialist domination. As long as imperialism exists it will, by definition, exert its domination over other countries. Today that domination is called neocolonialism.

Neocolonialism developed first in South America, throughout a whole continent, and today it begins to be felt with increasing intensity in Africa and Asia. Its forms of penetration and development have different characteristics. One is the brutal form we have seen in the Congo. Brute force, without any respect or concealment whatsoever, is its extreme weapon. There is another more subtle form: penetration into countries that win political independence, linking up with the nascent local bourgeoisies, development of a parasitic bourgeois class closely allied to the interests of the former colonizers. This development is based on a certain temporary rise in the people's standard of living, because in a very backward country the simple step from feudal to capitalist relations marks a big advance, regardless of the dire consequences for the workers in the long run.

Neocolonialism has bared its claws in the Congo. That is not a sign of strength but of weakness. It had to resort to force, its extreme weapon, as an economic argument, which has generated very intense opposing reactions. But at the same time a much more subtle form of neocolonialism is being practiced in other countries of Africa and Asia. It is rapidly bringing about what some have called the South Americanization of these continents; that is, the development of a parasitic bourgeoisie that adds nothing to the national wealth of their countries but rather deposits its huge ill-gotten profits in capitalist banks abroad, and makes deals with foreign countries to reap more profits with absolute disregard for the welfare of the people. There are also other dangers, such as competition between fraternal countries, which are politically friendly and sometimes neighbors, as both try to develop the same investments simultaneously to produce for markets that often cannot absorb the increased volume. This competition has the disadvantage of wasting energies that could be used to achieve much greater economic coordination; furthermore, it gives the imperialist monopolies room to maneuver.

When it has been impossible to carry out a given investment project with the aid of the socialist camp, there have been occasions when the project has been accomplished by signing agreements with the capitalists. Such capitalist investments have the disadvantage not only of the terms of the loans but other, much more important disadvantages as well, such as the establishment of joint ventures with a dangerous neighbor. Since these investments in general parallel those made in other states, they tend to cause divisions between friendly countries by creating economic rivalries. Furthermore, they create the dangers of corruption flowing from the constant presence of capitalism, which is very skillful in conjuring up visions of advancement and well-being to fog the minds of many people. Some time later, prices drop in the market saturated by similar products. The affected countries are obliged to seek new loans, or to permit additional investments in order to compete. The final consequences of such a policy are the fall of the economy into the hands of the monopolies, and a slow but sure return to the past. As we see it, the only safe method for investments is direct participation by the state as the sole purchaser of the goods, limiting imperialist activity to contracts for supplies and not letting them set one foot inside our house. And here it is just and proper to take advantage of interimperialist contradictions in order to secure the least burdensome terms.

We have to watch out for “disinterested” economic, cultural and other aid that imperialism grants directly or through puppet states, which gets a better reception in some parts of the world.

If all of these dangers are not seen in time, some countries that began their task of national liberation with faith and enthusiasm may find themselves on the neocolonial road, as monopoly domination is subtly established step by step so that its effects are difficult to discern until they brutally make themselves felt.

There is a big job to be done. Immense problems confront our two worlds — that of the socialist countries and that called the Third World — problems directly concerning human beings and their welfare, and related to the struggle against the main force that bears the responsibility for our backwardness. In the face of these problems, all countries and peoples conscious of their duties, of the dangers involved in the situation, of the sacrifices required by development, must take concrete steps to cement our friendship in the two fields that can never be separated: the economic and the political. We should organize a great solid bloc that, in its turn, helps new countries to free themselves not only from the political power of imperialism but also from its economic power.

The question of liberation by armed struggle from an oppressor political power should be dealt with in accordance with the rules of proletarian internationalism. In a socialist country at war, it would be absurd to conceive of a factory manager demanding guaranteed payment before shipping to the front the tanks produced by his factory. It ought to seem no less absurd to inquire of a people fighting for liberation, or needing arms to defend its freedom, whether or not they can guarantee payment.

Arms cannot be commodities in our world. They must be delivered to the peoples asking for them to use against the common enemy, with no charge and in the quantities needed and available. That is the spirit in which the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have offered us their military aid. We are socialists; we constitute a guarantee of the proper utilization of those arms. But we are not the only ones, and all of us should receive the same treatment.

The reply to the ominous attacks by U.S. imperialism against Vietnam or the Congo should be to supply those sister countries with all the defense equipment they need, and to offer them our full solidarity without any conditions whatsoever.

In the economic field we must conquer the road to development with the most advanced technology possible. We cannot set out to follow the long ascending steps from feudalism to the nuclear and automated era. That would be a road of immense and largely useless sacrifice. We have to start from technology at its current level. We have to make the great technological leap forward that will reduce the current gap between the more developed countries and ourselves. Technology must be applied to the large factories and also to a properly developed agriculture. Above all, its foundation must be technological and ideological education, with a sufficient mass base and strength to sustain the research institutes and organizations that have to be created in each country, as well as the men and women who will use the existing technology and be capable of adapting themselves to the newly mastered technology.

These cadres must have a clear awareness of their duty to the society in which they live. There cannot be adequate technological education if it is not complemented by ideological education; without technological education, in most of our countries, there cannot be an adequate foundation for industrial development, which is what determines the development of a modern society, or the most basic consumer goods and adequate schooling. A good part of the national revenues must be spent on so-called unproductive investment in education. And priority must be given to the development of agricultural productivity. The latter has reached truly incredible levels in many capitalist countries, producing the senseless crisis of overproduction and a surplus of grain and other food products or industrial raw materials in the developed countries. While the rest of the world goes hungry, these countries have enough land and labor to produce several times over what is needed to feed the entire world. Agriculture must be considered a fundamental pillar of our development. Therefore, a fundamental aspect of our work should be changes in the agrarian structure, and adaptation to the new technological possibilities and to the new obligations of eliminating the exploitation of human beings.

Before making costly decisions that could cause irreparable damage, a careful survey of the national territory is needed. This is one of the preliminary steps in economic research and a basic prerequisite for correct planning. We warmly support Algeria's proposal for institutionalizing our relations. We would just like to make some supplementary suggestions: First: in order for the union to be an instrument in the struggle against imperialism, the cooperation of Latin American countries and an alliance with the socialist countries is necessary.

Second: we should be vigilant in preserving the revolutionary character of the union, preventing the admission into it of governments or movements not identified with the general aspirations of the people, and creating mechanisms that would permit the separation from it of any government or popular movement diverging from the just road.

Third: we must advocate the establishment of new relations on an equal footing between our countries and the capitalist ones, creating a revolutionary jurisprudence to defend ourselves in case of conflict, and to give new meaning to the relations between ourselves and the rest of the world. We speak a revolutionary language and we fight honestly for the victory of that cause. But frequently we entangle ourselves in the nets of an international law created as the result of confrontations between the imperialist powers, and not by the free peoples, the just peoples, in the course of their struggles.

For example, our peoples suffer the painful pressure of foreign bases established on their territories, or they have to carry the heavy burden of massive foreign debts. The story of these throwbacks is well known to all of us. Puppet governments, governments weakened by long struggles for liberation or the operation of the laws of the capitalist market, have allowed treaties that threaten our internal stability and jeopardize our future. Now is the time to throw off the yoke, to force renegotiation of oppressive foreign debts, and to force the imperialists to abandon their bases of aggression. I would not want to conclude these remarks, this recitation of concepts you all know, without calling the attention of this gathering to the fact that Cuba is not the only Latin American country; it is simply the only one that has the opportunity of speaking before you today. Other peoples are shedding their blood to win the rights we have. When we send our greetings from here, and from all the conferences and the places where they may be held, to the heroic peoples of Vietnam, Laos, so-called Portuguese Guinea, South Africa, or Palestine — to all exploited countries fighting for their emancipation — we must simultaneously extend our voice of friendship, our hand and our encouragement, to our fraternal peoples in Venezuela, Guatemala and Colombia, who today, arms in hand, are resolutely saying “No!” to the imperialist enemy.

Few settings from which to make this declaration are as symbolic as Algiers, one of the most heroic capitals of freedom. May the magnificent Algerian people — schooled as few others in sufferings for independence, under the decisive leadership of its party, headed by our dear compañero Ahmed Ben Bella — serve as an inspiration to us in this fight without quarter against world imperialism.

[19]. Che Guevara delivered this speech at the Second Economic Seminar of Afro- Asian Solidarity, February 24, 1965. He had been touring Africa since December, after addressing the United Nations General Assembly on December 11, 1964. At this crucial time Che was preparing for his involvement in the liberation movement in the Congo, which began in April 1965. This edition of the speech incorporates for the first time corrections made by Che Guevara to the original published version of the Algiers speech. The corrections were made available from the personal archive of Che Guevara held at the Che Guevara Studies Center, Havana.

[20]. Che's participation in the Algiers conference reflects the relationship of Cuba to the Third World. In 1959, following the triumph of the revolution, from June to September, Che embarked on a tour of the countries involved in the Bandung Pact. The Bandung Pact was the precursor to what later became the Movement of Nonaligned Nations. At the First Seminar on Planning in Algeria on July 16, 1963, Che had outlined the experiences of the Cuban Revolution, explaining that he had accepted the invitation to attend “only in order to offer a little history of our economic development, of our mistakes and successes, which might prove useful to you some time in the near future...”

[21]. In this speech Che defined very precisely his revolutionary thesis for the Third World and the integration of the struggle for national liberation with socialist ideas. Che's call in Algeria on the socialist countries to give unconditional and radical support to the Third World provoked much debate. Nevertheless, history would prove him correct.

[22]. This definition of unequal exchange was part of Che's profound appeal made in Geneva on March 25, 1964, at the UN World Conference on Economics and Development in the Third World: “It is our duty to... draw to the attention of those present that while the status quo is maintained and justice is determined by powerful interests... it will be difficult to eliminate the prevailing tensions that endanger humankind.”

[23]. For Che, socialism inherently meant overcoming exploitation as an essential step toward a just and humane society. Che was outspoken on this issue in debates and was often misunderstood, as was his emphasis on the need for international unity in the struggle for socialism. Che's idea was that the international socialist forces would contribute to the economic and social development of the peoples that liberated themselves.

[24]. Che's direct participation from 1959 to 1965 in the construction of a technological and material basis for Cuban society is strongly linked to his idea of creating the new man and woman. This is a question that he constantly returned to, considering it one of the two main pillars on which a new society would be constructed. His strategy was not only to solve immediate problems but to put in place certain structures that would secure Cuba's future scientific and technological development. He was able to advance this strategy during his time as head of the Ministry of Industry. For further reading on this topic, see his speeches: “May the Universities be Filled with Negroes, Mulattos, Workers and Peasants” (1960) and “Youth and Revolution” (1964).

[25]. In his efforts to understand fully the tasks in the transition to a socialist economy, Che came to see the vital role of economic planning, especially in the construction of a socialist economy in an underdeveloped country that retained elements of capitalism. Planning is necessary because it represents the first human attempt to control economic forces and characterizes this transitional period. He warned also of the trend within socialism to reform the economic system by strengthening the market, material interests and the law of value. To counter this trend, Che advocated centralized, antibureaucratic planning that enriched consciousness. His idea was to use conscious and organized action as the fundamental driving force of planning. For further reading see his article “The Significance of Socialist Planning” (1964).

Kennedy kondigt gedeeltelijke blokkade van Cuba aan

FET 20030215: 7

TV Address To The Nation By President John F. Kennedy On Cuba- 10/22/62

http://194.93.140.245/pdfs/haz/haz74russell.pdf (20030922)

Good evening, my fellow citizens: This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive Missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere.



Upon receiving the first preliminary hard information of this nature last Tuesday morning at 9 a.m., I directed that our surveillance be stepped up. And having now confirmed and completed our evaluation of the evidence and our decision on a course of action, this Government feels obliged to report this new crisis to you in fullest detail.



The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1000 nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D.C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area.



Additional sites not yet completed appear to be designed for intermediate range ballistic missiles capable of traveling more than twice as far-and thus capable of striking most of the major cities in the Western Hemisphere, ranging as far north as Hudson Bay, Canada, and as far south as Lima, Peru. In addition, jet bombers, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, are now being uncrated and assembled in Cuba, while the necessary air bases are being prepared.



This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base-by the presence of these large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all the Americas, in flagrant and deliberate defiance of the Rio Pact of 1947, the traditions of this Nation and hemisphere, the joint resolution of the 87th Congress, the Charter of the United Nations, and my own public warnings to the Soviets on September 4 and 13- This action also contradicts the repeated assurances of Soviet spokesmen, both publicly and privately delivered, that the arms buildup in Cuba would retain its original defensive character, and that the Soviet Union had no need or desire to station strategic missiles on the territory of any other nation.



The size of this undertaking makes clear that it has been planned for Some months. Yet only last month, after I had made clear the distinction between any introduction of ground-to- ground missiles and the existence of defensive anti-aircraft missiles, the Soviet Government publicly stated on September 11th that, and I quote, "the armaments and military equipment sent to Cuba are designed exclusively for defensive purposes," that, and I quote the Soviet Government, "there is no need for the Soviet Government to shift its weapons . . . for a retaliatory blow to any other country, for instance Cuba," and that, and I quote their government, "the Soviet Union has so powerful rockets to carry these nuclear warheads that there is no need to search for sites for them beyond the boundaries of the Soviet Union." That statement was false.



Only last Thursday, as evidence of this rapid offensive buildup was already in my hand, Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko told me in my office that he was instructed to make it clear once again, as he said his government had already done, that Soviet assistance to Cuba, and I quote, "pursued solely for the purpose of contributing to the defense capabilities of Cuba," that, and I quote him, "training by Soviet specialists of Cuban nationals in handling defensive armaments was by no means offensive, and if it were otherwise," Mr. Gromyko went on, "the Soviet Government would never become involved in rendering such assistance." That statement also was false.



Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents an efficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril. Nuclear weapons are so destructive and ballistic missiles are so swift, that any substantially increased possibility of their use or any sudden change in their deployment may well be regarded as a definite threat to peace.



For many years, both the Soviet Union and the United States, recognizing this fact, have deployed strategic nuclear weapons with great care, never upsetting the precarious status quo which insured that these weapons would not be used in the absence of some vital challenge. Our own strategic missiles have never been transferred to the territory of any other nation under a cloak of secrecy and deception; and our history-unlike that of the Soviets since the end of World War II-demonstrates that we have no desire to dominate or conquer any other nation or impose our system upon its people. Nevertheless, American citizens have become adjusted to living daily on the bull's-eye of Soviet missiles located inside the U.S.S.R. or in submarines.



In that sense, missiles in Cuba add to an already clear and present danger-although it should be noted the nations of Latin America have never previously been subjected to a potential nuclear threat.



But this secret, swift, and extraordinary buildup of Communist missiles-in an area well known to have a special and historical relationship to the United States and the nations of the Western Hemisphere, in violation of Soviet assurances, and in defiance of American and hemispheric policy-this sudden, clandestine decision to station strategic weapons for the first time outside of Soviet soil- is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country, if our courage and our commitments are ever to be trusted again by either friend or foe.



The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. This nation is opposed to war. We are also true to our word. Our unswerving objective, therefore, must be to prevent the use of these missiles against this or any other country, and to secure their withdrawal or elimination from the Western Hemisphere.



Our policy has been one of patience and restraint, as befits a peaceful and powerful nation, which leads a worldwide alliance. We have been determined not to be diverted from our central concerns by mere irritants and fanatics. But now further action is required-and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth-but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced.



Acting, therefore, in the defense of our own security and of the entire Western Hemisphere, and under the authority end trusted to me by the Constitution as endorsed by the resolution of the Congress, I have directed that the following initial steps be taken immediately:



First: To halt this offensive buildup, a strict quarantine on all offensive military in equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed, to other types of cargo and carriers. We are not at this time, however, denying the necessities of life as the Soviets attempted to do in their Berlin blockade of I948-



Second: I have directed the continued and increased close surveillance of Cuba and its military buildup. The foreign ministers of the OAS, in their communiqué of October 6th, rejected secrecy on such matters in this hemisphere. Should these offensive military preparations continue, thus increasing the threat to the hemisphere, further action will be justified. I have directed the Armed Forces to prepare for any eventualities; and I trust that in the interest of both the Cuban people and the Soviet technicians at the sites, the hazards to all concerned of continuing this threat will be recognized.



Third: It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.



Fourth: As a necessary military precaution., I have reinforced our base at Guantanamo, evacuated today the dependents of our personnel there, and ordered additional military units to be on a standby alert basis.



Fifth: We are calling tonight for an immediate meeting of the Organ of Consultation under the Organization of American States, to consider this threat to hemispheric security and to invoke articles 6 and 8 of the Rio Treaty in support of all necessary action. The United Nations Charter allows for regional security arrangements-and the nations of this hemisphere decided long ago against the military presence of outside powers. Our other allies around the world have also been alerted.



Sixth: Under the Charter of the United Nations, we are asking tonight that an emergency meeting of the Security Council be convoked without delay to take action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace. Our resolution will call for the prompt dismantling and withdrawal of all offensive weapons in Cuba, under the supervision of U.N. ob

1959 L'université Lovanium est dotée dun réacteur atomique de recherche de type TRIGA, premier en Afrique

bron: http://historyindian.tripod.com/congo/id1.html

Kinshasa Reactor



In May 1997, Chris McGreal reported for South Africa's Mail & Guardian that "Kinshasa's reactor is an indirect spin-off of the Americans Second World War atomic bomb project. The uranium for the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was mined in what was then the Belgian Congo. After the war, the US rewarded Belgium with its own nuclear centre. In 1958, when Brussels thought it would hold onto its colony for many years, Belgium built the Kinshasa reactor, the first in Africa. Two years later, Zaire won its independence. The reactor - updated with a new model in the mid-1970's - is principally used for medical and genetic research. The latest experiments include bombarding corn with neutrons. The International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna makes yearly inspections and helps meet the running costs. But it can only offer suggestions and has no authority to shut the reactor down."

bron: http://www.marekinc.com/PhotosTrigaIIDRC.html

noot LT: draagwijdte van dit gegeven ?

ONE SOUTH WILLIAM STREET

NEW YORK



October 11, 1939



Dear Mr. President:



With approaching fulfillment of your plans in connection with revision of the NeutralityAct, I trust that you may now be able to accord me the opportunity to present a

communication from Dr. Albert Einstein to you And other relevant material bearing on experimental work by physicists with far-reaching significance for National Defense.

Briefly, the experimentation that has been going on for half a dozen years on atomic disintegration has culminated this year (a) in the discovery by Dr. Leo Szilard and Professor Fermi that the element, uranium, could be split by neutrons and (b) in the opening up of the probability of chain reactions, - that is, that in this nuclear process uranium itself may emit neutrons. This new development in physics holds out the following prospects:

1. The creation of a new source of energy which might be utilized for purposes of power production;

2. The liberation from such chain reaction of new radio-active elements, so that tons rather than grams of radium could be made available in the medical field;

3. The construction, as an eventua1 probability, of bombs of hitherto unenvisaged potency and scope: As Dr. Einstein observes, in the letter which I will leave

with you, "a single bomb of this type carried by boat and exploded in a port might well destroy the whole

port together with some of the surrounding territory!"



In connection, then, with the practical importance of this work - for power, healing and

national defense purposes - it needs to be borne in mind that our supplies of uranium are limited

and poor in quality as compared with the large sources of excellent uranium in the Belgian Congo

and, next in line, Canada and former Czechoslovakia. It has come to the attention of Dr. Einstein

and the rest of the group concerned with this problem that Germany has actually stopped the sale

of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines it seized. This action must be related to the fact that

the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, Karl von Weizsaecker, had been an assistant at

the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin

to come of the great physicists now resident in this country who are carrying forward these

experiments on uranium.



Mindful of the implications of all this for democracy and civilization in the historic

struggle against the totalitarianism that has exploited the inventions of the free human spirit, Dr.

Szilard, in consultation with Professor E. P. Wigner, head of the physics department of Princeton,

and Professor E. Teller of George Washington University, sought to aid this work in the United

States through the formation of an association for scientific collaboration, to intensify the

cooperation of physicists in the democratic countries - such as Professor Joliet in Paris, Professor

Lindemann of Oxford and Dr. Dirac of Cambridge - and to withhold publication of the progress in

the work on chain reactions. As the international crisis developed this summer, these refugee

scholars and the rest of us in consultation with them unanimously agreed that it was their duty, as

well as desire, to apprise you at the earliest opportunity of their work and to enlist your

cooperation.



In view of the danger of German invasion of Belgium, it becomes urgent to make

arrangements - preferably through diplomatic channels - with the Union Miniere du

Haut-Katanga, whose head office is at Brussels, to make available abundant supplies of uranium

to the United States. In addition, it is necessary to enlarge and accelerate the experimental work,

which can no longer be carried out within the limited budgets of the departments of theoretical

physics in our universities. It is believed that public-spirited executives in our leading chemical and

electrical companies could be persuaded to make available certain amounts of uranium oxide and

quantities of graphite, and to bear the considerable expense of the newer phases of the

experimentation. An alternative plan would be the enlistment of one of the foundations to supply

the necessary materials and funds. For either plan and for all the purposes, it would seem

advisable to adopt the suggestion of Dr. Einstein that you designate an individual and a committee

to serve as a liaison between the scientists and the Executive Departments.



In the light of the foregoing, I desire to be able to convey in person, in behalf of these

refugee scholars, a sense of their eagerness to serve the nation that has afforded them hospitality,

and to present Dr. Einstein's letter together with a memorandum which Dr. Szilard prepared after

some discussion with me and copies of some of the articles that have appeared in scientific

journals. In addition, I would request in their behalf a conference with you in order to lay down the lines of policy with respect to the Belgian source

of supply and to arrange for a continuous liaison with the Administration and the Army and Navy

Departments, as well as to solve the immediate problems of necessary materials and funds.



With high regard,



Yours sincerely,

/s/ Alexander Sachs









The President,

The White House,

Washington, D.C.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box5/t64b03.html