by Sir Arthur Foulkes
In the 1990s Caribbean High Commissioners accredited to Great Britain made representations to the United Kingdom Government every time they found out that a British ship was about to transport nuclear material through the Caribbean Sea on the way to or from Japan.
The two-way traffic was to supply Japan with radioactive material from Britain and France for its nuclear power plants and to have it shipped back for reprocessing.
Caribbean governments regarded this as a serious threat to the region and feared that an accident would unleash radioactive poison into the Caribbean Sea with disastrous consequences for coral reefs, marine resources, tourism and, of course, the health of their people.
The British and French would never inform Caribbean governments when a shipment was to take place. They used the security excuse for this secrecy, but the environmental organization Greenpeace always found out and alerted the Caribbean diplomats who would then protest.
After one such demarche the British Government invited the High Commissioners to visit the nuclear power station at Sellafield where the fuel rods were processed.
The diplomats dutifully accepted and donned the protective gear for a tour of the facilities. They were also given a tour of the ships that were specially designed to transport this dangerous material.
Sellafield had been a subject of controversy and concern on the part of some of Britain’s neighbours. Both Ireland and Norway complained that the dumping of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea was a direct threat to their populations and fisheries. Prevailing currents took the waste from the Irish Sea to the coast of Norway.
Eventually the British Government agreed to the presence of Irish experts and police at Sellafield to monitor its activities.
The US Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Centre (AUTEC) is not a nuclear facility like Sellafield. Still, the Sellafield experience can be instructive in the current debate over AUTEC.
The Caribbean High Commissioners recognized that, while it was nice to see Sellafield and the ships and ask questions, they were not competent to judge the veracity of the safety claims made by their hosts. So they continued to protest against radioactive shipments through the region.
While it was nice of the Americans to invite Bahamas Government officials to tour AUTEC, it is very doubtful that the visit accomplished a great deal. The Bahamian officials have neither the expertise nor the equipment necessary to make useful judgments about what is going on at the base in Andros.
It could be true, as the Americans are saying, that there is no proven link between the reported high incidence of cancer in Andros and the activities of AUTEC, but we simply do not know. What does seem to be beyond dispute is that sonar testing is injurious to marine life, and probably to humans as well.
Experience has shown that neither the Americans nor the British can be trusted to make judgments in favour of Bahamian health and environmental interests when their own interests conflict.
The dumping of nerve gas in the Bahamas in 1967 and biological experiments in the region bear testimony to that.
Diplomatic language may not permit the Bahamas Government to tell our American friends that we do not trust them to look out for Bahamian interests in this matter but we can say, as US President Ronald Reagan said to his friend, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev: “Trust, but verify!”
But how can we verify? The Irish have their Radiological Protection Institute to keep an eye on Sellafield, but the Bahamas does not have the expertise nor the resources necessary to monitor the activities of AUTEC nor, for that matter, the proposed LNG facilities.
In the case of AUTEC we are bound by a contractual arrangement, but perhaps the Bahamas Government should seek help from Commonwealth, United Nations or independent agencies to verify until the contract runs out.
This affair has drawn some interesting comments from Agriculture and Marine Resources Minister Leslie Miller who now seems so concerned about protecting the health and environment of Bahamians.
Will this experience cause him to rethink his position on the LNG proposals he has up to now so ardently advocated?
If we sign up to the LNG terminal and pipeline to Florida, there would be no turning back, not even when it is later proven to be seriously inimical to our environmental, economic and security interests.
It all comes down to how we see the Bahamas. Some see this country as the proverbial pimple on the posterior of the world. Others see it as a convenient backyard in which to dump their waste, and to do dirty things they would not be allowed to do back home in their own yard.
But Bahamians should see these islands and surrounding waters as a precious patrimony teeming with riches and blessed with beauty, a heritage to be jealously conserved for future generations, not to be put at unnecessary risk for a few dollars.
* * *
MARCH OF FOLLY
In last week’s discussion of human folly I briefly mentioned Barbara Tuchman’s book, The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. A friend selected some quotes from the book which I share with readers:
“To qualify as folly for this inquiry, the policy must meet three criteria; it must have been perceived as counter-productive in its own time, not merely by hindsight. …
“Secondly a feasible alternative course of action must have been available. To remove the problem from personality, a third criterion must be that the policy in question should be that of a group, not an individual ruler, and should persist beyond any one political lifetime. …
“Folly’s appearance is independent of era or locality; it is timeless and universal, although the habits and beliefs of a particular time and place determine the form it takes. It is unrelated to type of regime; monarch, oligarchy and democracy produce it equally. Nor is it particular to nation or class.’’
Comments