Nuclear Material Found in Andes Sign of Proliferation Threat

Reports out of Colombia cite government sources saying the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) acquired uranium on the black market. Colombian authorities claim to have recoverd 66 pounds of uranium. The radioactive material, which in some forms can fuel to a nuclear device, was said to have been recovered after information on 3 laptops seized led authorities to it.

Colombian officials had said previously that they suspected the FARC were trying to acquire nuclear material in order to make a radioactive "dirty bomb", but that has yet to be confirmed. According to reports about the actual find, the material may have been purchased for resale, as a means of generating revenue or aiding other militant groups.

The Seattle Times reports:

The two uranium chunks found Wednesday were described by Colombia's military chief as "impoverished." Only uranium enriched through processing - something most countries, including Colombia, are not equipped to do - can be used to make nuclear weapons or power reactors, scientists say.

While independent confirmation of the recovered material or its origin is not available, the meaning of loose nuclear material traveling through the Andean region on the black market, is a sign of the real risks of proliferation. It is not merely international conflict or state-funded arms races that promote nuclear proliferation; there is also the element tied to the financial interests of smaller players, some of whom may be involved in armed conflict with their nation's government.

This is a wildly different vision of the WMD threat from what was professed so voluminously in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003. "Rogue states" seeking nuclear material from established market providers is a much lower threat, due to the level of oversight, international regulation and foreign management of the resources. The Andean material hints at a network of vendors not answering to governments or to regulatory regimes.

Whether or not this material was intended to be used in a "dirty bomb", or for resale to a shadowy entity seeking to do research, its being loose is itself a threat to public safety, and a sign of ineffectual international regulation. Whether or not Colombia will be able to determine the actual origin of the seized uranium, these reports raise the question as to what sort of diplomatic initiatives would best work to curb the spread of catalytic nuclear materials.

WISE Uranium reports that at least 4 different corporations are conducting new uranium mining exploration projects inside Colombia. So, Colombia itself is a possible source for the materials.

Policy approaches to such incidents must balance the temptation to forceful or coercive responses with a genuine examination of the root causes and the actual security flaws. Overreaching will only worsen the problem. At present, the FARC is reported to refute the authenticity of the laptops, saying they could not have survived Colombia's bombardment of their camp.

• Seattle Times: "Colombia Investigates Uranium Find"
• CSM: "FARC acquired uranium, says Colombia"
• World Information Service on Energy: "New Uranium Mining Projects - South/Central America"

Bhutto Assassination Signals Deep-running Political Rift that Could Destabilize Pakistan

Fmr. Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto, whose father was executed in the process of a military coup in the 1970s, and who has said she remained "broken" by what had happened to her during 5 years in military prison, was assassinated Thursday, while campaigning to restore free elections to her country. She had been the first woman elected PM in a Muslim country and had sworn she would combat radical fundamentalism and end the cycle of military takeovers.

Since her return to Pakistan in October, she has faced an attempt on her life that killed over 100 supporters, multiple incidents of house arrest, the suspension of the Constitution, martial law and the arbitrary replacement of several supreme court justices by then military leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf. While Pres. Musharraf himself claimed he had surrounded her home with more than 4,000 police and concrete barricades "for her own safety", Bhutto had accused several high-ranking members of Musharraf's security apparatus of ties to fundamentalist militia in the Northwest of the country.

Bhutto has said repeatedly that she returned to Pakistan knowing it would put her life at risk, but that she could not live comfortably in exile while she watched a major threat to her nation gather force and potentially destroy hopes for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law. She was considered the favorite to win the premiership in January elections, slated to be held after much wrangling, international pressure, Musharraf's resigning as military chief and the subsequent lifting of martial law.

Now, the entire global community must face the harsh reality that Benazir Bhutto's assassination poses a very serious threat to regional stability, and could plunge Pakistan into a confused multi-faceted power-struggle in which democracy is likely to lose out to authoritarian measures, which will be justified as an attempt to secuure Pakistan's nuclear weapons against radical Islamist militia groups.

In the US, condemnation of the assassination is near universal, and political and security analysts are warning of the dangers that could emerge either from "ignoring the threat" posed by radical groups that may have been responsible and by the Musharraf government's duplicity in both countering and collaborating with these insurgent elements, or by taking too aggressive a stance against any element internal to Pakistan's domestic political struggles.

Concern is widespread among governments that have backed Gen. Musharraf's regime that his transition to democracy has been slow and clumsy, or even halting and contrary, while his dealmaking with radical militia groups has contributed to their taking root and being emboldened across the poorly policed northwest border region.

In responsible political and diplomatic circles, pressure will be heavy on Pres. Musharraf to find and to subject to serious, open criminal prosecution those responsible, even should they be members of his top-level security establishment, as some Bhutto supporters allege.

That group is often viewed with suspicion both by democrats and by those radical insurgents most opposed to an open democratic state in Pakistan, and demonstrating the will to counter such elements could give the government the credibility it needs to work with opposition leaders and to effectively stabilize the remote border regions. Though at present, many fear the Musharraf government is too heavily reliant on the strong-arm support of rogue elements in the security establishment.

Liberty & Security Wrestle in Pakistan, as Elsewhere: What Does this Mean for 21st Century Democracy?

In many parts of the world, people are presently facing the question, on a societal scale, of whether or not free and open democracy can coexist with measures taken to protect against extremism. The question is an old one and goes to the root of whether it is possible, as a matter of natural law, to vote away one's rights or to vote against democracy.

To take a serious look at this question, we must first consider that: democracy is not an ideology and it is not a system; it is quite simply the idea that no form of government can be legitimate unless it is (regularly) chosen by a free and sovereign people. That can be implemented in a number of ways and need not be contrary to anyone's culture or faith.

But, a new problem has come into play in recent years, which has existed throughout modern times and essentially has always been part of the mix between populist rhetoric and authoritarian rule, from Hellenic city states to the Roman empire up through the 20th century: that is whether the need to be secure justifies overruling the protections that allow for a population of free individuals to choose its government.

Famously attributed to Ben Franklin, but possibly written by diplomat Richard Jackson is the tenet "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Clearly, one cannot secure one's liberty by stamping it out, just as one cannot save a village by burning it.

There are countless cases of dictators committing mass murder under the auspices of a prolonged security operation or state of emergency, so it should not be shocking that authoritarian rulers expect to persuade that mass detention, the suspension of civil liberties and attacks on opposition activists can be justified by security concerns, so long as no one is killed.

In Pakistan, we have seen a tragic loss of life —the authorship of which is still undetermined— when a bomb attack targeted Benazir Bhutto's celebratory convoy upon her return after years in exile. Now, we are seeing a general who has ruled as a quasi civilian leader for nearly a decade, targeting all the levers of a democratic state, and making the claim that security and extremism are his concerns.

Maybe. What if? But there is no way to trust in that justification, because as Ms. Bhutto quite rightly points out, extremists are being ignored by the 4,000 police surrounding her home, and the legal system has been dismantled by military decree, added to which we have the constnt problem of a general claiming he plans to save democracy by stamping it out.

There are clearly real security issues in Pakistan. As there were in 1864 when the United States was at war with itself, but still held national elections. As there are at all times in the Philippines, whose government confronts several rebel factions, or even in Spain, where Basque separatists continue to harass the democratic state.

In 2004, when the Spanish ruling party talked of suspending elections because there had been a terror attack, it was top ranking military and police who said they would not stand by and watch the constitution ignored by the government. When the US Dept. of Homeland Security, under Tom Ridge, contemplated suspending November elections, it was the president's own party that responded to public outrage and moved to bar such a move.

Security and liberty are not at odds. They are parallel streams whose tributaries often intersect, but they have their own course and should not be mixed for the political gain of any faction or ideology. This much we should be able to agree on. From there, we need to take a very serious look at what motivates a people to sign away its rights in the confusion of a dangerous moment.

Mozambique's 'Tree of Life' Project Turns Used Weapons into Signs of Hope

Sentido.tv :: In the wake of Mozambique's long civil war, lasting from 1976 to 1992, a group of artists, sponsored by Christian aid, set up the Transforming Arms into Tools (TAE) project in the nation's capital, Maputo. Sculptors use decomissioned weapons, and parts of weapons to make art, expressing the possibility of finding new ways to secure and advance civil society.

The TAE project encourages people to exchange weapons for useful tools, such as sewing machines, tools for farming and other items that can help sustain a productive, if modest lifestyle. The project is thoroughly humanitarian and aims to educate people, to remind them of the horrors of war, and to show that good will is more powerful than the technology of war.

The "Tree of Life" is one of the most inspired and spectacular results of the project. It was sculpted by Cristovao Canhavato (Kester), Hilario Nhatugueja, Fiel dos Santos and Adelino Serafim Maté, four artists from Mozambique. At 3.5 meters in height, the Tree of Life was installed at the British Museum in London, as part of its year-long feature Africa 2005.

The sculpture and some smaller pieces, which include fascinating renditions of regional African fauna, are touring different sites where they can deliver the message that in Mozambique culture has turned toward an enduring commitment to end armed conflict and build a society structured around creative expression and learning.

Mozambique's long and arduous civil war, which began in 1976, in the wake of the collapse of Portugal's dictatorship and the withdrawal of troops from resistant former colonies, lasted for over 16 years. An estimated 1 million people were killed, upwards of 1.7 million fled into neighboring countries, and several million more were internally displaced.

Graça Machel, wife of former South African president and Nobel laureate Nelson Mandela, is quoted as saying: "When you see this Tree, you don’t just see Mozambique, you see the face of Africa. You see in the sculpture all the conflicts which have gone on in the making of it, and that’s why it’s wonderful to see the great space the British Museum has given it..." [Complete Text]

Amnesty Reported in 2006: International Arms Trade 'Out of Control'

Sentido.tv :: Human rights group says 'opaque chain' of private interests increasing shipments of dangerous arms, with little supervision...

Amnesty International (Amnesty/AI) has published a new report examining the international arms trade, and its findings indicate there is little control on the expanding web of private interests seeking to profit from a proliferation of dangerous weapons. The report also illustrates the ways in which this scattering of dangerous weapons has led to severe human rights abuses.

AI arms expert Brian Wood told the Reuters news service "Brokering is increasingly common, with main contractors sub-contracting supply, transportation and collection in an ever lengthening and increasingly opaque chain". The supply chain is slipping beyond the grip of international arms control law and regulatory agencies.

His concern, as expressed in the report "Dead on Time: arms, transportation, brokering and the threat to human rights", is that this type of shady arms trafficking is stirring conflict and facilitating gross abuses of human rights, even as perpetrators are enabled to hide their caches from international bodies.

The Amnesty report makes several suggestions for curbing the near rampant spread of small arms and military equipment to developing countries and conflict zones. Among these suggestions is a more uniform regime of arms control laws, beginning at the national level and meeting international standards based on a global treaty framework.

It calls for "Making violations of UN arms embargoes a criminal offence in all states and in the case of serious violations, a crime with universal jurisdiction". Such a provision would mean that individuals serving in governments or linked to arms manufacturers could face charges in any country for violating any arms embargo anywhere.

The principle is that without this sort of barrier to the spread of weapons, the motive to profit by circumventing international arms embargoes against corrupt or tyrannical regimes or against sending weapons into conflict zones would too easily (as it does not) find a way to serve its interests, endangering possibly millions of lives.

[...] There is no clear message from any one government on its involvement in any of these transactions or whether they are seen to contravene existing human rights treaties or war profiteering provisions of domestic laws. But the aim of the report seems to be to raise awareness among officials of leading arms exporters.

The report ultimately calls for 13 specific steps to enhance international security measures throughout the arms trade, which it hopes will be more likely after a publication campaign to raise the public's interest in pushing officials to limit such exports where conflict or tyranny is enabled or perpetuated by this sort of trade. [Complete Text]