(UHURU NEWS) France in Central Africa: A history of colonial violence and resistance
Makola Libanga
Published Jan 9, 2014
The people of Central African Republic have been victims of French colonial violence since the late 1800s when France ruled Central Africa as part of the French Congo.
Once again, France has sent more troops into Africa to supposedly bring peace and stability, this time in Central African Republic (CAR). There are now hundreds of French troops occupying CAR along with thousands of African troops sent by the neocolonialist African Union.
French troops are already scattered in Africa, particularly within its former colonies, including CAR. The French government is reported to have sent more troops to halt the violence, which was triggered when the alliance of “rebel” groups took power in March 2013, removing the neocolonial president Francois Bozizé.
The current violence has left more than 1,000 dead in Bangui alone, the capital city, with thousands more displaced and injured.
Imperialist media primarily blame the violence on the Muslim Seleka rebels who they accuse of looting, raping and killing since seizing power. Their leader, Michel Djotodia, who has been installed as CAR’s interim president, has admitted he has no control over the Seleka soldiers.
France is behind the violence
Imperialist media present French troops as saviors, but the truth is the French government and their companies are behind the violence. The people of Central African Republic have been victims of French colonial violence since the late 1800s when France ruled Central Africa as part of the “French Congo.”
The Africans were forced to labor for different European companies, who looted ivory, diamonds, rubber and now oil. Many Africans resisted French control, notably the Kongo-Wara rebellion (1928–31), however they were met with French brutality. The leaders were imprisoned or executed, with the population forcibly moved to “designated villages” and suppressed.
During flag independence, the French government broke up the colony into segments (Congo Republic, Gabon, CAR), thus creating mini economically ineffective states with tiny populations surrounded by mineral wealth.
To maintain the looting of CAR after flag independence, the French government occupied all of its colonies imposing neocolonial leaders loyal to France, who agreed with the terms set in the “Colonial Pact.”
This pact allows France to determine the currency value, hold the countries’ currency reserve and take a large share over all profits made from exports and imports.
The “Colonial Pact” also demands that France has the first right to buy or reject any natural resources found in the land, even if the country could get better prices elsewhere. The countries cannot sell to other nations unless France decides not to buy the natural resources and determines who can buy our resources.
The French government also controls CAR by playing off various neocolonial forces against each other, using its military on the ground to ensure the outcome. CAR president Francois Bozizé was removed by the French government because he allowed Chinese businesses to buy oil fields in CAR without French consent.
France’s looting of CAR has left it one of the poorest countries in Africa, with life expectancy at just 47 years, and deeply under-populated with only five million people, less than the city of London, but with a land mass bigger than France!
France’s re-colonization of Africa
The rise of India and China as well as the oppressed nations taking back their resources, is behind Europe’s economic crisis. France has massive public and bank debt. It has the largest exposure to both Greek and Italian debt (among others). Last year it lost its AAA status credit rating, which the capitalists use to determine where to invest and store their cash.
France’s unemployment figure is at 3.29 million—that is 10.5 percent of the working population.
The French government will increase its looting of Africa to solve its economic problems. France is hoping to create 200,000 jobs over the next five years by increasing its “trade” in Africa.
In December 2013, France held a two-day summit between France and 40 African leaders. French finance minister Pierre Moscovici said, "We have to speak the language of truth: African growth pulls us along, its dynamism supports us and its vitality is stimulating for us... We need Africa."
So the wars in Ivory Coast, Libya, Mali and in CAR are part of Europe’s long-term plan to re-colonize Africa and stop the rise of other countries including Africa itself.
France out of Africa!
The French government is being supported by the U.S. army. On December 9, U.S. defense secretary Chuck Hagel authorized military transport aircraft to carry troops from Burundi to support the French.
Africans in CAR, however, are isolated in their resistance against the French and the Seleka rebels who have been allowed to kill and rape civilians to impose a new president.
Despite this, on Tuesday December 31, thousands blocked the airport runway calling for the French-imposed president to step down. This protest took place even though several protestors were killed during a previous protest in Bangui.
The African Union soldiers cannot bring peace in CAR. They are under French military command.
French soldiers cannot bring peace in Africa regardless of the lies they report in imperialist media. The French military controls the Seleka rebels, and are disarming African youth who are defending their communities from Seleka attacks.
It is the task of ordinary Africans in and outside of Africa to lead an international struggle against France’s re-colonization of Africa by exposing their real aims in Africa and by shutting down French businesses wherever we are.
Imperialism Out of Africa!
Labels: FRANCE, NEOCOLONIALISM, URANIUM
Read more...
(UHURUNEWS) Why are French troops occupying the streets of Bangui?
Luwezi Kinshasa, Secretary General of the African Socialist International
Published Jan 9, 2014
This time the international press apparatus of white imperialist powers are telling us that the French army has invaded Central Africa Republic (CAR) in order to stop the violence between the African Christian and Muslim community in the country! What childish gibberish!
Imperialist press may be running short of cash, but not short in printing and broadcasting straight lies!
Why have the French invaders and their accomplices of the Chad army decided to overthrow General Francois Bozize who they helped put in power in a 2003 coup against Ange Patasse?
It is clear that Francois Bozize has been ousted from power because he opened up Central Africa Republic resources such as oil and uranium to Chinese and South African companies, which in the long term will inevitably undermine French economic interest and control of CAR.
The presence of the South African army in CAR and around the presidential security cordon of Bozize was a direct curbing of the Chadian army's influence, which used to provide personal security for General Francois Bozize.
Thus, France and the neocolonial army of Chad found common interest in dislodging Francois Bozize from power.
Bozize, like many of the African petty bourgeois leaders on the African continent, attempted to play older imperialists against other emerging economic powers.
Bozize, in his own words explained his fall from power as reported on counterpunch.org on March 28, 2013: "Why did they start raping, killing and hurting the Central African population? We gave them everything. Before giving oil to the Chinese, I met Total [a French oil company] in Paris and told them to take the oil, nothing happened, I gave oil to the Chinese and it became a problem. I sent counselor Maidou in Paris for the Uranium dossier, they refused. I finally gave it to the South Africans..."
The French are busy developing work to mine uranium in Bakouma, some 900 km (560 miles) from Bangui. Some 75 percent of French electricity comes from uranium, and it is reported that at least 25 percent comes from African uranium in Niger alone.
How do you solve a religious conflict? What does religion have to do with mines? Because, one of the first things the rebel soldiers did was to secure the control of mines! It is not a religious question? It is an economic war.
Central African Republic is known to have oil, uranium, diamond, copper, timber etc... It has a wealthy geology. If you look at all the wars in Africa, they are all wars on countries with a lot of wealth underground.
It was reported on March 28, 2013 here on Uhurunews.com that, "It is difficult to believe that a country larger than France and as vast as Texas has less than 500km of paved roads... The Central African Republic is rich in gold, diamonds, wood, etc. The economy of the CAR is dominated by Air France, Bollore (logistic and river transport), Castel (drinks and sugar), Total (storage and distribution of the petroleum products), CFAO for the automobile distribution, etc."
Francois Hollande has sent his troops to maintain French ruling class control of the economy in CAR, which does not serve us but France and the rest of Europe.
Victorious Seleka rebels to end contracts with Chinese and prioritize relations with white imperialist rulers
Michael Djotodia, the leader of Seleka, the victorious alliance of the rebel forces backed by Chad's government has already announced that he will review the CAR's mining and oil contracts with China, signed by the ousted Bozize government, "to see whether things were badly done, to try and sort them out."
Further, Djotodia declared that he would invite the former colonial powers in CAR - France, along with the United States - to retrain the official military, which was defeated by Seleka last weekend.
"We will rely on the European Union to help us develop this country," Mr. Djotodia said, adding that about 80 percent of the country's foreign aid has come from the bloc. "When we have been sick, the European Union was at our bedside. It will not abandon us now."
This reminds us of Laurent Nkunda, one of the leading officers of the Rwanda army involved in proxy wars in Congo in 2008, who always claimed that he took arms to defend the interest of persecuted Tutsi population, but after he took control of parts of the Kivu, in Eastern Congo, he demanded that president Kabila cancel all agreements made with the Chinese, which was clearly in defense of the U.S./EU interests against the Chinese, at the expense of Africa.
As the Chinese companies who are resource hungry and looking for markets in neocolonial Africa in exchange for building infrastructure (which the Chinese call win-win), their European imperialist rivals' response is a military one. Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Libya, Mali, and now Sudan and Central Africa Republic - we are seeing the same response, a military aggression to prevent the ongoing shift in the global balance of power at the expense of Europe and U.S. and their allies.
It is imperative that we explain what is happening to us ourselves, with our own analysis and solutions. All imperialist solutions at best can only be reform of imperialism to maintain status quo; otherwise, they are imperialism business as usual.
It is insane to expect the same imperialist who oppressed us for over 500 years to give us the correct narrative of our miserable and painful existence under their inhumane parasitic capitalism.
It is more insane to try to intoxicate our brains with this nonsensical war of confessions in CAR. It is an imperialist war to loot and kill African people for the material development of Europe and North America. Period.
France lives off African nation's labor and resources. Time to put a final end to it
France cannot change its relationship with Africa by its own accord. Those Africans who voted for Francois Hollande to be president because they thought that Hollande the "socialist" was different from Sarkorzy were mistaken! France, a crisis ridden imperialist country, is aggressively fighting to hold on to its stolen loot.
The former French president Charles De Gaulle used to say that France does not have friends but only interests.
According to Paul Melly and Vincent Darracq in "A New Way to Engage? French Policy in Africa from Sarkozy to Hollande":
"France's engagement in Africa is deep. It intervened militarily in the continent 19 times between 1962 and 1995. But gradually, budgetary concerns and a changed strategic climate have encouraged France to adopt a new multilateral approach. Structural changes to the armed forces, including sharp reductions in the size of the military and base closures between 1997 and 2002 meant France could no longer maintain the dominance that it had in the 1960s and 1970s. Still, according to the French Ministry of Defence, in February 2013, of 10,025 military personnel deployed overseas, 4,610 were in West Africa, 2,180 in central Africa and 270 were involved in anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden."
There are about 250,000 French people living in Africa, with at least 10,000 French living in Gabon, which has less than 2,000,000 people. They do not live in poverty like African people in Cape Town, Detroit or Israel. They live in luxury!
The French imperialism out of Mali article in January 2013 stated, “With France's social programs consuming 56 percent of its GDP, Hollande is looking to the neocolonies to solve its economic woes. Hollande is on the same path as his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkorzy, who led the invasion of Libya in conjunction with U.S. military forces from AFRICOM.
"Just before France conceded to African demands for independence in the 1960s, it carefully organized its former colonies (CFA countries) in a system of "compulsory solidarity" which consisted of obliging the 14 African states to put 65 percent of their foreign currency reserves into the French Treasury, plus another 20 percent for financial liabilities. This means these 14 African countries only ever have access to 15 percent of their own money! If they need more they have to borrow their own money from the French at commercial rates! And this has been the case since the 1960s."
We should also remind our people and friends, that if there is crisis in CAR, Mali, Ivory Coast, Senegal and the rest of the 14 African countries which use the CFA currency, it is because of the French government's devaluation of the CFA overnight by 100 percent in January 1994.
This calculated and cold crime by imperialist France to save itself from collapsing was like striking Africa with a nuclear bomb, as the price of every commodity doubled overnight because of the French engineered devaluation.
So we know why the French imperialist bloodsuckers are sending their troops in CAR. We also know what we must to do to defeat French imperialism.
This quote from the ASI Main Resolution that everyone must read and can be found at asiuhuru.org, calls on us to draw the line in the sand between the African petty bourgeoisie, the ally of white imperialism, and the African working class and its ally of the poor peasantry:
"We must be clear that the international organization necessary to liberate and unify Africa and our scattered nation is a political party in the form of the African Socialist International. With one party rooted in the African working class and allied with the poor peasantry we will have captured the best aspect of the Garvey Movement of the twentieth century... However, unlike Garvey's UNIA, we will have an organization conscious of itself as a revolutionary instrument in the hands of the African working class. This will also distinguish our organization from such formations as those that have been characterized as 'fronts,' 'people's organizations,' 'congresses,' 'unions,' 'conventions'..."
That is why the African Socialist International is calling on all African people everywhere to get on board by joining us, to complete the work of Kwame Nkrumah: the liberation and unification of the oppressed and dispersed African nation.
Stop parasitic capitalism in Africa!
Let's organize! Take the first step!
Join the African Liberation Committee in Europe today!!!
Labels: CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, MICHAEL DJOTODIA, NEOCOLONIALISM, URANIUM
Read more...
(WHAT'S LEFT)
US Aiming Higher than Nuclear Deal in Iran
Posted in Iran by what's left on October 6, 2013
By Stephen Gowans
US hostility to Iran didn’t begin with the latter enriching uranium. It began in 1979, when Iran extricated itself from US domination by overthrowing the US-backed Shah, who had been installed after the United States and Britain engineered the overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected, and economically nationalist, prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Mosaddegh irked the British and Americans by nationalizing his country’s oil industry.
Ever since the Shah’s overthrow, Washington has been waging war on Iran, through a proxy (Saddam Hussein’s Iraq), by sanctions, assassinations, cyber-warfare and threats of military intervention. The goal is to bring Iran back under US domination. Ending Iran’s nuclear program—or more specifically, its domestic production of nuclear fuel—is only part of the larger goal.
Recently, there has been talk of relaxing” or “easing” (though not ending) sanctions and of a possible “thaw” in US-Iranian relations. Washington sees, in the new Iranian president, the possibility of concessions, and wants to facilitate Iran’s partial capitulation. Israel fears that Iran is sending false signals, and is playing for time.
Iran is seeking an end to sanctions and recognition of its right to enrich uranium. [1] This conflicts with Washington’s view that Iran has the right to nuclear energy, but not to domestic production of nuclear fuel. Washington wants Iran to:
• Halt work on a heavy water reactor at Arak (which could produce plutonium);
• Destroy the subterranean Fordo uranium enrichment facility (which is invulnerable to air attack);
• Suspend production of uranium enriched to 20 percent purity (deemed dangerously close to weapons grade);
• Relinquish its existing stockpile of nuclear fuel;
• Allow international inspectors to talk to Iran’s top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (who has been hidden away, out of reach of Israeli assassins. [2]
Even if Iran acceded to all of Washington’s demands, a number of US sanctions would remain. These include sanctions intended to stop Iran from:
• Developing other weapons of mass destruction;
• Building ballistic missiles;
• Supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad;
• Exercising influence in the Middle East;
• Exporting arms;
• Dealing with unrest and subversion at home (stoked by the misery created by Western sanctions);
• Monitoring and censoring domestic internet communications. [3]
In previous talks with Iran, US and European negotiators have offered to relax some sanctions. For example, they proposed to end trade sanctions banning exports of airplane parts to Iran, in return for Iran suspending domestic production of nuclear fuel. This is a mild trade sanction, hardly punitive in comparison to the ban on Iranian oil exports and isolation of Iranian banks that have taken a heavy toll on Iran’s economy and more to the point, on the lives of its people.
Background [4]
In return for forswearing the development of nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) grants to non-nuclear weapons states the right to develop and use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran is a member of the treaty, and its nuclear facilities are monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). IAEA monitors have never reported that Iran has diverted nuclear material to military use.
Whether the right to develop and use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes includes the right to enrich uranium is disputed, but some NPT members, including Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands, have domestic uranium enrichment programs which operate without sanction or threat. Only Iran is denied this right.
Israel refused to become a member of the NPT, presumably to allow itself the option to develop nuclear weapons. The country has an estimated 400 nuclear warheads, and the aircraft, ballistic missiles and submarine-launched cruise missiles to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East. In contrast, even if Iran did have nuclear warheads, it hasn’t anywhere near the range of delivery options Israel has, and would struggle to develop them.
This raises an embarrassing question for the United States. Why is Iran the object of sanctions, bombing threats, cyber-warfare, and an assassination campaign targeting its nuclear scientist, despite its forswearing the development of nuclear weapons and opening its nuclear facilities to the IAEA, when Israel, which actually has nuclear weapons and refuses to join the NPT, faces no similar pressure? The answer, according to John Bolton, who was deputy secretary of arms control under George W. Bush, is that “The issue for us is what poses a threat to the United States.” In other words, the key here is not a nuclear weapons capability but whether the country that possesses it is under US domination.
The United States supplied the Shah’s Iran with the Tehran research reactor, which began operations in 1967, and is still used to produce medical isotopes. It is this reactor which requires uranium enriched to 20 percent purity. In 1974, with Washington’s approval, the Shah announced plans to build two reactors at Bushehr. At the time of the 1979 revolution, the reactors were nearing completion. After the revolution, the United States tore up its nuclear agreements with Iran and pressured other countries to treat the country as a pariah.
The history of Iran’s nuclear program can be divided into two periods: Before the revolution, and after. Before the revolution, the United States and other Western countries helped Iran acquire nuclear technology. After the revolution, they did their best to freeze Iran out.
In the mid-1980s, Iran asked the IAEA for assistance in enriching uranium. The NPT directs nuclear powers to furnish non-nuclear member states with information, equipment and materials for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The idea is that there’s a quid-pro-quo: non-nuclear states agree to foreswear nuclear weapons in return for the nuclear weapons states helping them develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Under US pressure, Iran’s request for assistance was rejected. With this avenue blocked, Iran turned to AQ Khan, the father of the Pakistan bomb. The AQ Khan network provided Iran with design information and equipment for uranium enrichment facilities, enabling Iran to build an enrichment plant at Natanz.
Crying Wolf
US, Israeli and other US-ally intelligence agencies, western politicians, and the western media, have cried wolf about Iran developing nuclear arms since the early 1980s. In 1984, Jane’s Defence Quarterly reported that Iran was “entering the final stage of the production of a bomb.” [5] In 1995, The New York Times reported that US and Israel officials believed that Iran would have nuclear weapons by the year 2000. [6] Thirteen years later, Iran still doesn’t have a bomb. “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany, and it’s racing to arm itself with atomic bombs,” warned Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu in 2006. [7] Netanyahu has been raising the same alarm for years. In 1992, he predicted that Iran was three to five years away from producing a warhead. [8] Today, he says Iran is only a few months away from developing a nuclear bomb. With his egregiously bad record of prediction, Netanyahu has revealed himself to be a fear-monger, and an unreliable prognostic.
No intelligence agency has ever produced hard evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The IAEA has never found that Iran has diverted nuclear material to military use. The US intelligence community’s Intelligence Estimate says that Iran abandoned a nuclear weapons program in 2003. The opinion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program to abandon in the first place is probably based on Iran acquiring information and equipment from AQ Khan. [9] Whatever the case, the US intelligence community doesn’t believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons today, and has said so repeatedly. Even so, major US news media regularly assert that the West believes Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons. If so, who in any official capacity in the West truly believes this?
In 2006, the United Nations Security Council passed six resolutions on Iran’s nuclear energy program, demanding that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program. But the Security Council had no legal basis to claim that Iran’s nuclear energy program is a threat to international peace and security, and therefore, no basis to pass its resolutions. To repeat:
• There is no evidence Iran has nuclear weapons.
• The country’s nuclear facilities are monitored by the IAEA.
• The IAEA hasn’t uncovered any diversion of nuclear material for military use. [10]
What’s more, Iran hasn’t attacked another country in 200 years. And if Iran’s enriching uranium is a threat to international peace and security, why isn’t Argentina’s, Brazil’s, Germany’s, Japan’s and the Netherland’s? The answer is plain from Bolton: They’re US satellites; Iran isn’t.
Double Standards
Washington Post columnist Walter Pincus argues that the Israelis insist Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons despite Tehran’s assurances they are not, because that’s what the Israelis themselves did. Pincus wrote that:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders continue to accuse Tehran of deceit in describing its nuclear program as peaceful.
Perhaps Netanyahu sees Iran following the path Israel took 50 years ago when it’s known that his country joined the relatively small nuclear weapons club.
Back in the 1960s, Israel apparently hid the nuclear weapons program being carried on at its Negev Nuclear Research Center (NNRC) at Dimona. It deceived not only the international community but also its close U.S. ally. It repeatedly pledged “it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the area.”
In early 1966, at the time of a U.S. sale of F-4 fighter-bombers to Israel, the Johnson administration insisted that Israel reaffirm that pledge. “Foreign Minister Abba Eban told Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara that Israel did not intend to build nuclear weapons, ‘so we will not use your aircraft to carry weapons we haven’t got and hope we will never have,’” according to the State Department’s Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII.
Sound familiar? Maybe that’s why Netanyahu was so tough Tuesday during his U.N. General Assembly speech when attacking Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s statements that Tehran’s nuclear program is peaceful. When the Israeli prime minister asked, “Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities?” I thought Dimona.
According to the bipartisan, Washington-based, Nuclear Threat Initiative, the Machon 2 facility at Dimona “is reportedly the most sensitive building in the NNRC, with six floors underground dedicated to activities identified as plutonium extraction, production of tritium and lithium-6,” for use in nuclear weapons. [11]
The answer to Netanyahu’s question about why Iran would bury its enrichment facilities deep underground is obvious: to protect them from an Israeli air attack. Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility in 1981 and bombed a suspected nuclear facility in Syria in 2007, and has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. It would be criminally stupid not to hide enrichment facilities underground with Mars-worshiping Israel in the neighbourhood, since the Zionist settlers are bent on denying any country in the Middle East that is not under the sway of its patron, the United States, access to nuclear technology, whether for peaceful or military purposes.
The important point that Pincus misses is that Israel never joined the NPT, thereby giving itself the legal latitude to pursue nuclear weapons, but more importantly, remaining free from IAEA monitoring, which would have made keeping the development of nuclear weapons under wraps inordinately difficult, and more likely, impossible. A country that intends to develop nuclear weapons on the sly doesn’t want international inspectors poking around its nuclear installations. That’s why non-nuclear countries that have gone on to develop nuclear weapons have either not joined the NPT, or have withdrawn from it before embarking on nuclear weapons development. The fact that Iran continues to belong to the NPT and therefore submits to ongoing monitoring, even though its treaty rights have been abridged and nuclear member states have failed to live up to their treaty obligations to share nuclear technology and know-how with Iran, is a compelling reason to doubt the country is trying to follow the path Israel did of developing nuclear arms covertly.
Washington’s Aims
What Washington ultimately wants is the replacement of Iran’s independent government with a pliable regime, that is, regime change in Tehran—a return to the time before the 1979 revolution. A recent US Congressional Research Service report notes that “observers believe that the international community should offer incentives—such as promises of aid, investment, trade preferences, and other benefits—if Iran were to completely abandon uranium enrichment in Iran or were there to be a new regime formed in Iran (emphasis added.)” [12] If the goal of sanctions is to deter Iran from enriching uranium, why offer to lift sanctions were there to be a new regime formed in Tehran? In this can be glimpsed the ultimate aim of anti-Iran economic warfare: Not to force Tehran to relinquish its right to enrich uranium, but to install a new regime. The United States already allows its satellites Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands to enrich uranium, and doubtlessly would allow Iran to do the same were the regime in Tehran as committed to acquiescing to Washington’s leadership as US satellites are.
As it manoeuvres to bring about regime change in Tehran, the United States pursues its intermediate goal of containing Iran, to limit its influence. Crippling Iran’s economy through sanctions serves two goals: weakening Iran and warning other countries of what happens to those who do not submit to US hegemony. The prospect of Washington even relaxing some sanctions has agitated Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates who fear that, with some of the fetters on Iran’s economy removed, the country will be better able to challenge them economically. [14]
Many US sanctions against Iran and those of US satellites are rooted in the pretext that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program, or at the very least is developing a nuclear weapons capability, that must be stopped because it is a threat to Israel. Attributing a covert nuclear weapons program to Iran while propagating a farrago of nonsense about Iran seeking to annihilate Israel militarily, allows Israel to remain militarily bulked up and immune from calls to relinquish its weapons of mass destruction, ostensibly in order to defend itself, but actually to be intimidating enough to act as Washington’s policeman on the beat. How, it is asked, can Israel disarm when its security is under unceasing threat from hostile neighbors? The necessity of guarding against a wide array of vastly exaggerated threats is a pretext all aggressive powers use, including the United States and Britain, to justify the maintenance of vast and multifariously dangerous arsenals, less for self-defense and more for aggression and to cow other countries into submission. Britain, for example, says it needs its nuclear arsenal for self-defense, but denies that North Korea needs nuclear weapons for the same purpose. However, of the pair, North Korea is the most likely to come under attack. Indeed, it has been the object of unceasing hostility from the world’s greatest military power for over six decades. The chances of Britain being attacked, even absent its nuclear weapons, are about as great as the chances that nuclear-weapons-free Canada will be—approximately zero.
Iran’s military capabilities pale in comparison with those of Israel, which are subsidized by the United States. Moreover, Israel’s security is vouchsafed by US military power. Iran poses no military threat to Israel of consequence, and, even in possession of a few warheads, would be greatly outclassed by Israel, both in the size of sophistication of its nuclear arsenal, and in the means of delivery. As a supporter of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, Iran is more of a nuisance to Israel than a direct threat. The idea that a nuclear-weapons-equipped Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel is a canard, of no more substance than Netanyahu’s frequent warnings, dating back to the early 1990s, that Iran is on the threshold of going nuclear.
Regime Change
Sanctions are a pathway to regime change. Their purpose is to create enough suffering that Iranians will rise in revolt and open the gate from within. That economic warfare has created suffering is not in doubt. Oil sales, which account for 80 percent of the country’s revenue, have been halved. Iran’s foreign exchange reserves have dwindled. Financing business deals has become terribly complicated. [14] Sanctions are deliberately disruptive.
Bahman Eshghi, who owns a bus manufacturing company, told The New York Times that “he ‘nearly had a heart attack’ when he found out that President Obama had imposed sanctions against any company working with Iran’s automotive industry. ‘That’s me,’ he said. ‘I feed 100 families in a city where nobody has work. Is Mr. Obama waging economic war on our leaders or on us?’ [15]
The answer is that Obama is waging war on ordinary Iranians. When the hardships the US government imposes become unendurable, it’s hoped that ordinary Iraninas will rise in revolt and topple their government, allowing Obama or his successors to install a US puppet, to return Iran to its status before the 1979 revolution. At that point, if it is ever reached, US foreign policy goals for Iran will have come to fruition.
There’s little chance of Washington significantly relieving its pressure on Iran. The United States may make insignificant concessions in return for Iran curtailing its production of nuclear fuel. This would leave Iran dependent on the West for fuel to power its reactors, and therefore more pliant, and more apt to make concessions on other matters, from reducing support to its Axis of Resistance partners to “reforming” its economy to accommodate Wall Street. Apart from making these minor concessions, it’s difficult to see Washington lifting sanctions en masse or normalizing relations with Iran until a pliant puppet regime has taken up residence in Tehran. For Washington, the name of the game is regime change. Arms control alone falls well short of the goal-line.
1. Michael Schwirtz and David E. Sanger, “Dueling narratives in Iran over U.S. relations”, The New York Times, September 29, 2013.
2. David E. Sanger, “Big challenges remain despite progress on Iran”, The New York Times, September 28, 2013; Jodi Rudoren, “Israel and others in Mideast view overtures of U.S. and Iran with suspicion”, The New York Times, September 28, 2013.
3. Kenneth Katzman, “Iran Sanctions”, Congressional Research Service, July 26, 2013.
4. This section based on Peter Oborne and David Morrison, A Dangerous Delusion: Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran, Elliot and Thompson, London, 2013.
5. Oborne and Morrison.
6. Oborne and Morrison.
7. Joel Greenberg, “Benjamin Netanyahu invokes Holocaust in push against Iran”, The Washington Post, February 29, 2012.
8. Oborne and Morrison.
9. Oborne and Morrison.
10. Oborne and Morrison.
11. Walter Pincus, “Fineprint: A new approach for Israel?” The Washington Post, October 2, 2013.
12. Katzman.
13. Sanger; Jay Solomon and Carol E. Lee, “Netanyahu, in U.N. speech, assails Iran’s new president”, The Wall Street Journal, October 1, 2013.
14. Thomas Erdbrink, “Iran staggers as sanctions hit economy”, The New York Times, September 30, 2013.
15. Erdbrink.
Labels: IRAN, MOHAMMAD MOSSADEGH, NEOCOLONIALISM, URANIUM
Read more...
(NYASATIMES) UN rubbishes Malawi’s Paladin uranium deal, fertilizer subsidy
By Hudson Mphande, Nyasa Times
July 23, 2013
United Nations Special Raportuer on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter who was in Malawi for an assessment of the food situation in the country has rubbished Kayerekera uranium mine deal between Malawi and Australian Paladin Mining Company saying the Southern African country has had a raw deal that is robbing the poor.
The UN Raportuer said the uranium mining deal was one of the investments in Malawi through which the country is losing resources that could otherwise make a difference in food security and other pro-poor initiatives. He said in the life span of the mine Malawi is expected to lose almost US$281 million.
The Special Raportuer also rubbished the country’s food security policies saying even the high-profile Farm Input Subsidy Programme (Fisp) has failed to rid the country of chronic food security and malnutrition.
“Mining companies are exempt from customs duty, excise duty, value added taxes on mining machinery, plant and equipment. They can also sign special deals on the rate of royalty owed to the government. I believe that there are more reasons that investors would come to Malawi without such incentives,” he said.
UN official Oliver De Schutter says Malawi losing out on Kayelekera deal
UN official Oliver De Schutter says Malawi losing out on Kayelekera deal
De Schutter was addressing journalists in the capital Lilongwe at the end of his 11-day tour of the country.
He bemoaned that due to illicit financial flows, tax envasion as well as tax incentives that the country offer to both domestic and foreign companies currently Malawi was failing to get maximum use of its resources.
De Schutter said that revenue losses from special tax incentives to Paladin Africa Mining alone are estimated at almost K67 billion (US$205 milion) since the mine started its operations and could reach almost K92 billion (US$281 million) over its13-year lifespan.
“Paladin alone is costing the budget more than US$20 million (almost K8 billion) a year in taxes,” he said.
He added: “I am convinced that unless combined with a comprehensive enhancement and optimisation of tax revenue, current macro-economic reforms may not have substantive positive impacts. There is need for
Malawi to examine its national tax laws and policies towards preventing illicit capital flight. As mining develops, Malawi can simply not afford business-as-usual.”
The UN Special Raportuer said it is estimated that the country has lost over 10 percent of its growth domestic product (GDP) to illicit outflows and tax evasion over the period 1980 to 2009.
FISP
On Fisp, he bemoaned that despite such high-profile food security policies, more than half of the country’s population remains in poverty with almost quarter of the population still utra-poor earning less than the recommended UN daily wage.
De Schutter said Fisp has actually failed to uplift the lives of poor Malawians despite huge sums of money going into the programme every year.
“One of the major concerns is that targetting may not be optimal as it is only those who are already better off or better connected that have access,” he said.
He blamed the Fisp for the problems that dog the country’s budget, saying the current cost of the subsidy is straining other services such as agricultural research, extention services, training, rural roads as well as delays in the implementation of the Green Belt Initiative (GBI).
De Schutter expressed doubts that Malawi will sustain the programme considering the rising costs of fertiliser imports.
He also said it is time Malawi should move beyond the fertiliser-led green revolution and embrace ‘brown’ and ‘blue’ revolutions to rebuild soil fertility and water retention.
De Schutter also specifically expressed concerns on the country’s current minimum wage currently at K371 ($1.12) per day, describing it as the lowest in the world.
He also expressed worries over the tenancy system in the tobacco industry which he said is also driving poverty and hunger in the country .
“Malawians need a durable agricultural resource base and living wages and currently they are getting neither. The policy of providing abundant, cheap and non-unioninsed labour to plantation owners must be consigned to the past,” said De Schutter.
Reaction
Commenting on the assessment by the UN official, Billy Mayaya who is chairman of the National Right to Food Network told Nyasa Times that the UN Special Rappoerteur visit to Malawi has highlighted the key issues that reinforce food insecurity.
“We commend government efforts to remedy the situation with various initiatives such as FISP. At the same time we appeal to government that there is need to put in measures to curb corruption as well as streamline targeting of the ultra poor and focus on sustainability,” Mayaya said.
“We are hopeful that the Government of Malawi will seriously consider the findings and recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur. The key is for Parliament to support the Bill on the Right to Food which is central to realising the Progressive Realisation of the Right to Food in Malawi with a focus on putting in place mechanisms to curb violations of the Right to Food which impede food security,” he added.
The UN special rapporteur said he will give a report and his recommendations to both the UN Human Rights Commission and the Malawi Government.
Labels: FDI, FISP, MALAWI, NEOLIBERALISM, OLIVIER DE SCHUTTER, UN, URANIUM
Read more...
(SUNDAY MAIL ZW) Police hunt down British journalists
Sunday, 11 August 2013 00:00
Sunday Mail Reporter
Police in Harare have launched a manhunt for British journalists Jerome Starkey and Jan Raath for spreading falsehoods that Zimbabwe signed a secret deal to export uranium to Iran for the manufacture of “a nuclear weapon”. In a case likely to embarrass the British media, outgoing Mines and Mining Development Deputy Minister Mr Gift Chimanikire yesterday denied statements the journalists attributed to him confirming the said deal.
Mr Chimanikire, in an interview with The Sunday Mail, described the story as “silly, speculative and dangerous”. The Secretary for Mines and Mining Development, Mr Prince Mupazviriho, also revealed that Zimbabwe does not have a uranium mine.
While police remained tight-lipped last night for fear of jeopardising investigations, impeccable sources privy to the case said law enforcement agents were keen to interview the two scribes and Mr Chimanikire.
In a story published under the headline “Mugabe signs secret deal to sell uranium to Tehran” in British newspaper The Times yesterday and picked by numerous news agencies, Starkey and Raath alleged the Government undertook to supply Iran raw materials for nuclear weapon production in breach of international sanctions.
Quoting Mr Chimanikire, the two journalists, who co-authored the article with Michael Evans and Hugh Tomlinson, also wrote that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed last year to facilitate the exports.
The article could undermine Zimbabwe’s foreign relations.
The United States and the European Union imposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme citing fears that Tehran intends to construct a bomb.
Iranian authorities have, however, since made it clear that the programme seeks to harness energy.
Mr Mupazviriho dismissed the journalists’ report as false, adding that Zimbabwe does not even have a uranium mine.
“That is a blatant lie. Whoever is saying that is being malicious. We have never issued any licence to any Iranian company. We do not have any uranium mine at the moment,” said Mr Mupazviriho, who also chairs Zimbabwe’s Mining Affairs Board, which, among other duties, considers mineral exports.
Mr Chimanikire said Government has not issued uranium mining licences since exploration was still being conducted in Kanyemba, Zambezi Valley.
He said Starkey deliberately misrepresented information he gave him in an interview last Thursday to tarnish the image of Zimbabwe.
“I wouldn’t have said that (the alleged uranium deal). No licence has been issued. I never said such a silly thing. We are exploring and not mining. He thought of selling his paper by being untruthful. I tried to call him after hearing about the article, but his phone is not reachable.
“It is a speculative and dangerous story. We have nothing to export because we have not mined. He just showed the typical mentallity bent on saying negative things about Zimbabwe.”
Mr Chimanikire, a high-ranking MDC-T official, said Starkey approached him for the interview while also clearly demonstrating a preconceived agenda to soil Zimbabwe’s diamond trade.
“That journalist was very notorious (mischievous). His name is Jerome Starkey, the Africa correspondent for The Times of London. He came to my office on Thursday asking whether Zimbabwe’s economy would recover.
“I gave him a synopsis of the mining sector. I told him that figures released at the recent Mine Entra showed that we need US$5 billion to recapitalise the sector. His (Starkey’s) thrust was to say diamonds are being stolen. So, I told him that: ‘No, there is no proof.’”
He added: “I also told him of our mineral reserves and that exploration is yet to be conducted in some areas. When I told him that uranium exploration was taking place in Kanyemba, Zambezi Valley, he then asked who our customers were and whether Iran was among them.
“I told him ‘no’, we do not determine customers; we market through the Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe. I also pointed out that in any case, we cannot be in a position to export uranium. I also mentioned that the Iranians were into textiles here.
“He then insisted on allegations of diamond theft to which I replied saying inspectors are allowed to go into Chiadzwa (Diamond Fields).”
Labels: GIFT CHIMANIKIRE, IRAN, JAN RAATH, JEROME STARKEY, JOURNALISM, PROPAGANDA, UK, URANIUM
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE) US warns Zim against Iran uranium deal
11/08/2013 00:00:00
by Agencies
COMMENT - Can't win an election, so they have to smear a country's reputation. Zimbabwe doesn't have a uranium mine, so how can they sell uranium to Iran? - MrK
THE United States has warned Zimbabwe against selling uranium that could be used in a nuclear weapons programme to Iran saying any such deal would violate international law and lead to severe penalties.
“UN Security Council Resolution 1737 prohibits the sale or transfer of uranium to Iran, except for low-enriched uranium when it is incorporated into assembled nuclear fuel elements for light-water reactors,” a US State Department official told the UK-based Times newspaper on Monday.
“The Government of Zimbabwe is bound by its commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and relevant legally binding UN Security Council resolutions.
“The United States is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We urge all countries to fully implement and enforce their obligations under multiple UN Security Council resolutions not to provide Iran with materials that could be used to develop a nuclear weapon.”
The warning followed a weekend report by the British newspaper claiming that Zimbabwe had agreed a secret uranium trade deal with Iran.
The claim was dismissed as wishful thinking by Mines Minister Obert Mpofu.
“We are free to trade with any country but my ministry has not signed an agreement about uranium with Tehran,” Mpofu said.
“It is fiction and usual wishful thinking of the Western media. Why would we have a secret deal when we are a free country?”
The Times had quoted deputy mining minister, Gift Chimanikire, as saying: “I have seen (a memorandum of understanding) to export uranium to the Iranians.”
Chimanikire admitted speaking to the newspaper but said his remarks had been “deliberately misrepresented” in a bid to “tarnish the country’s image”.
"It is a speculative and dangerous story. We have nothing to export because we have not mined," he said.
“We have no capacity to handle uranium as a country, and besides we don’t even know the quantity of uranium. We signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran, which covers various agreements in mineral trading such as diamonds, gold and other minerals.”
Zimbabwe sits on considerable mineral riches, including platinum, chrome, gold, diamond, and iron ore. But there is no estimate of uranium reserves.
The US and its allies imposed sanctions against Iran's energy and financial sectors to force the Islamic republic to stop its uranium enrichment activities over fears that Tehran might produce nuclear weapons.
Iranian authorities have, however, insisted that the nuclear program seeks to harness energy and is only for peaceful means.
Zimbabwe is also a target of Western sanctions, led by the US and European Union who accuse President Robert Mugabe and his ruling Zanu PF party of electoral fraud and human rights failings.
Meanwhile, the Sunday Mail reported that police had launched a manhunt for the journalists responsible for the report - Jan Raath and Jerome Starkey - which officials said "could undermine Zimbabwe's foreign relations".
Starkey tweeted about the alleged “manhunt” by local police.
However, ZRP spokeswoman Charity Charamba claimed not to know about the search for the journalists.
“I have not heard about it. I only got a call from someone else who was inquiring,” she told AFP, saying she would have to look into it.
Labels: IRAN, URANIUM, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
(TALKZIMBABWE) Chimanikire denies Zim-Iran uranium deal story
This article was written by Our reporter on 11 August, at 07 : 36 AM
Police in Harare have launched a manhunt for British journalists Jerome Starkey and Jan Raath for spreading falsehoods that Zimbabwe signed a secret deal to export uranium to Iran for the manufacture of “a nuclear weapon”.
In a case likely to embarrass the British media, outgoing Mines and Mining Development Deputy Minister Gift Chimanikire yesterday denied statements the journalists attributed to him confirming the said deal.
Chimanikire described the story as “silly, speculative and dangerous”.
The Secretary for Mines and Mining Development, Prince Mupazviriho, also revealed that Zimbabwe does not have a uranium mine.
While police remained tight-lipped last night for fear of jeopardising investigations, impeccable sources privy to the case said law enforcement agents were keen to interview the two scribes and Chimanikire.
In a story published under the headline “Mugabe signs secret deal to sell uranium to Tehran” in British newspaper The Times yesterday and picked by numerous news agencies, Starkey and Raath alleged the Government undertook to supply Iran raw materials for nuclear weapon production in breach of international sanctions.
Quoting Mr Chimanikire, the two journalists, who co-authored the article with Michael Evans and Hugh Tomlinson, also wrote that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed last year to facilitate the exports.
The article could undermine Zimbabwe’s foreign relations.
The United States and the European Union imposed sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme citing fears that Tehran intends to construct a bomb.
Iranian authorities have, however, since made it clear that the programme seeks to harness energy.
Mupazviriho dismissed the journalists’ report as false, adding that Zimbabwe does not even have a uranium mine.
“That is a blatant lie. Whoever is saying that is being malicious. We have never issued any licence to any Iranian company. We do not have any uranium mine at the moment,” said Mupazviriho, who also chairs Zimbabwe’s Mining Affairs Board, which, among other duties, considers mineral exports.
Chimanikire said Government has not issued uranium mining licences since exploration was still being conducted in Kanyemba, Zambezi Valley.
He said Starkey deliberately misrepresented information he gave him in an interview last Thursday to tarnish the image of Zimbabwe.
“I wouldn’t have said that (the alleged uranium deal). No licence has been issued. I never said such a silly thing. We are exploring and not mining.
“He thought of selling his paper by being untruthful. I tried to call him after hearing about the article, but his phone is not reachable.
“It is a speculative and dangerous story. We have nothing to export because we have not mined. He just showed the typical mentallity bent on saying negative things about Zimbabwe.”
Chimanikire, a high-ranking MDC-T official, said Starkey approached him for the interview while also clearly demonstrating a preconceived agenda to soil Zimbabwe’s diamond trade.
“That journalist was very notorious (mischievous). His name is Jerome Starkey, the Africa correspondent for The Times of London. He came to my office on Thursday asking whether Zimbabwe’s economy would recover.
“I gave him a synopsis of the mining sector. I told him that figures released at the recent Mine Entra showed that we need US$5 billion to recapitalise the sector. His (Starkey’s) thrust was to say diamonds are being stolen. So, I told him that: ‘No, there is no proof’.”
He added: “I also told him of our mineral reserves and that exploration is yet to be conducted in some areas. When I told him that uranium exploration was taking place in Kanyemba, Zambezi Valley, he then asked who our customers were and whether Iran was among them.
“I told him ‘no’, we do not determine customers; we market through the Minerals Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe. I also pointed out that in any case, we cannot be in a position to export uranium. I also mentioned that the Iranians were into textiles here.
“He then insisted on allegations of diamond theft to which I replied saying inspectors are allowed to go into Chiadzwa (Diamond Fields).”
Labels: GIFT CHIMANIKIRE, IRAN, JAN RAATH, JEROME STARKEY, JOURNALISM, PRINCE MUPAZVIRIHO, PROPAGANDA, URANIUM
Read more...
Is the French Invasion of Mali tied to a Colonial War for Uranium?
By Saeed Shabazz
Global Research, January 30, 2013
finalcall.com
There is still confusion in UN corridors concerning France’s military intervention in Northern Mali, which began on Jan. 11 with air strikes against the so-called Islamist camps moving closer to the capital city of Bamako.
The confusion stems from the French ambassador Gerard Araud’s insistence that his government was responding to a request from the Interim-Malian government for assistance, under Chapter 51 of the UN Charter. The Article states that there shall be an inherent right of collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN, until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.
Press reports indicated Jan. 16 that 800 French troops landed in Mali, with their numbers slated to reach 2,500 by the end of the month. President Francois Hollande, speaking on French television Jan. 15, said his government was determined to end “Islamist” domination in Northern Mali because it feared use of the territory as a base for attacks against the West.
“The Malian war has the potential to destabilize the region, a fact not lost on many of Mali’s neighbors. Yet the solution to this crisis will not be found in France’s intervention,” wrote Bill Fletcher, Jr. on his Blog, BillFletcherJr.com.
Troops from Niger, Togo, Burkina Faso and Senegal were expected to land in Mali, according to French officials, under the auspices of the Economic Community of West African States.
“Mali desperately needs the political intervention of the West African states and the African Union in order to advance a process of reconciliation, and to serve as a stabilizing force,” stated Mr.
Fletcher, an author, international labor activist and past president of the Washington, D.C.-based lobby TransAfrica Forum.
An African Union special representative speaking in Cote d’Ivoire Jan. 14 said ECOWAS and the African Union were working closely to find a solution to the Mali crisis, according to news reports.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius reportedly said on Jan. 14, “Key interests were at stake for us, for Africa, for Europe—so we had to act quickly.” Observers immediately began asking could that key interest be uranium.
Uranium is France’s key energy resource, according to the World Nuclear Association, with 75 percent of the European nation’s electricity being produced from nuclear energy, which explains French dependency on uranium. According to mineral resource analysts, beneath the deserts in Northern Mali and Eastern Niger, territory now exclusively claimed by the nomadic Tuareg tribes, exists the world’s third largest uranium reserves as well as substantial oil reserves.
Some observers say for 40-years the French company Areva had exclusive rights to uranium exploitation in Niger, until recently when the government of Niger issued permits to China, India, Britain, South Africa, the U.S., Canada and Australia to explore for uranium and oil, therefore France cannot afford to lose the uranium reserves in Mali.
There is also the China factor.
The Independent, a British publication, stated on Jan. 15 that China has given millions “as a gift” to the Malian people to raise their standard of living. A story in The China Times revealed that Mali and China signed three agreements worth $117.7 million. The Chinese are to build a hydro-electric dam in Taoussa, located in the region of Gao in northern Mali, now under Islamist control.
China is reportedly active in various development projects in Mali such dealing with industrialization, health, agriculture, education, security, communications and infrastructure.
The Mbendi Information Service reported in 2010 that several companies had been granted permission to explore for uranium in the Falea and Gao regions by the administration of former Malian President Amadou Toumani Toure, who was mysteriously ousted from office in March 2012 by junior Army officers a month before he was to step down.
Some mineral resource experts say uranium potential in the Gao region is thought to be 200 tons, while the Falea-North Guinea basin’s potential is thought to be 5,000 tons.
World renowned educator, Pan Africanist, African history scholar, and the U.S. chairman of the World African Diaspora Union, Dr. Leonard Jeffries told The Final Call he understands UN confusion over French insistence that Mali’s government requested intervention.
“The French don’t need a letter to intervene in their former colonies because of the accords they forced on them before granting independence; and these accords have not been re-worked,” Dr. Jeffries said.
For five decades, France has maintained a neo-colonial relationship known as “Pacte Coloniale” that gave France control of components of the new African states, including their economies and military institutions, Dr. Jeffries said. “Paris has cultivated the dependency of their former colonies by hand-picking weak regimes that gave them access to resources,” he added.
Labels: MALI, NEOCOLONIALISM, URANIUM
Read more...
COMMENT - Why would anyone in the West give a cent in 'donor aid' or charitable giving to Malawi, when the government refuses to collect the value of their people's natural resources? No African country needs 'donor aid', they need to get paid all of the value of their people's natural resources.
Paladin’s Malawi uranium deal: PETRA calls for combined forces against exploitation
By Nyasa Times Reporter
Malawi’s opposition party, People’s Transformation Movement (PETRA), says Malawians need to combine forces if they are to effectively fight any form of exploitation by foreign businesses.
PETRA’s remarks follow
Paladin Africa Limited’s declaration that it will not renegotiate the Kayelekera uranium mining agreement with the Malawi government until the expiry of the current 10-year contract.
Last week, PETRA president Kamuzu Chibambo told reporters in Blantyre that his party was giving Malawi Government a 14-day ultimatum to explain why the Kayelekera deal cannot be renegotiated.
PETRA’s move is as a result of growing discontent among Malawians over the contract which is evident that the previous government (of late President Mutharika) was given a raw deal by the Australian mining company.
Chibambo: We will fight against exploitation
Chibambo wants government’s stakes in the mine increased from the current 15 to 40 percent.
But in its response to the issue, Paladin declared that it will not renegotiate the existing contract as it invested a lot of money in the project basing on terms agreed in the contract.
“We will not renegotiate the agreement. And people think that terribly unreasonable. But it is not. The fact that Malawians think they got a raw deal doesn’t necessarily mean they did get a raw deal,” Paladin Africa’s General Manager for International Affairs, Greg Walker was quoted by the Daily Times.
While warning that any attempts to forcibly change the terms of the agreement would damage Malawi’s reputation as an investment destination, Walker insisted his company would stick to the existing agreement and expected the Malawi government to do likewise.
According to Walker, one of the clauses included in the agreement is that the government will not take any action that will seriously change the financial aspects of the project for a period of 10 years.
However, hitting back at Walker, the opposition leader affirmed his party would not relent but continue fighting against the exploitation.
“We are currently studying their response. But we just don’t buy their explanation. We will fight for the good of the country against any form of exploitation,” Chibambo, a lawyer, told Nyasa Times.
However, the opposition politician is pretty conscious that the fight requires a strong combination of voices if it is to be easily won.
“Of course the previous regime [of Bingu wa Mutharika] terribly failed the people of Malawi. So the onus is on all of us to seek redress. This is a noble cause that requires a strong coalition of voices,” he said.
Paladin claims Kayelekera is a high risk investment considering the volatile prices of uranium on the international market and the fact that Malawi has no track record in terms of handling a high scale foreign investment.
However, the company’s claims are in sharp contrast with the production outcome which, for instance, last quarter ended December, surged by 20.9 percent, according to its December 2012 Quarterly Activities Report.
Paladin is reported to have invested in the project about US$500 million.
Labels: MALAWI, MINING, NEOCOLONIALISM, PALADIN AFRICA LTD, PALADIN ENERGY AFRICA, PETRA, URANIUM
Read more...
Chief Sikoongo not ready for Uranium mining activities in his area
TIME PUBLISHED - Sunday, October 30, 2011, 3:19 pm
Chief Sikoongo of the Tonga speaking people of Siavonga District in Southern Province says he is not ready for Uranium mining in his chiefdom. The tradition leader has since called on the new government through the Ministry of Mines to notify him and his people on the coming of aUranium Mining Company, Africa Energy Resources (AER) in Sikoonga area.
Chief Sikoongo was speaking when Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ) officials paid a courtesy call on him at his palace. The Chief said the previous government permitted the Africa Energy Resources to invest in the area without his knowledge.
And addressing community earlier, CCZ Social Justice and Economic Coordinator Juliet Ilunga said it important that the Chief and the community understand issues of natural resources and how they would benefit from the extracted mineral resources.
Ms. Ilunga said CCZ was one of the three church mother bodies which believed that the church had a role to play in national development.
She stressed that the aim of CCZ was to promote Christian unity and improve the living standards of the people by speaking on behalf the voiceless.
Ms. Ilunga said man was made to lead a dignified life of having access to all basic needs in life.
“If I take you back, what used to happen with ZCCM mines on the Copperbelt was that the basic needs of life were available to all the miners and the people around the community . There were beautiful schools, the mines were able to provide roads, hospitals and able to pay amenities’ such as they could sponsor football teams and a lot of people were employed and benefited from the mines,” said Ms. Illunga.
She said equally, people of Sikongo should have access to good roads, schools, health care services among others.
“If I take you back, what used to happen with ZCCM mines on the Copperbelt was that the basic needs of life were available to all the miners and the people around the community . There were beautiful schools, the mines were able to provide roads, hospitals and able to pay amenities’ such as they could sponsor football teams and a lot of people were employed and benefited from the mines,” said Ms. Illunga.
She said when the mines have been sold to foreign investors, the minerals that are in the ground still remain for the community and the future generations.
“CCZ is trying to help the government to come up with a specific policy that is going to put up guidelines to protect you, your environment and the animal asUranium mining commences. This policy is going to outline the number of people who are going to be employed and the benefits that this community is supposed to get. Once its ready we will get back to you as it will help you claim for your demands from the investors,” said Ms. Ilunga.
The areas that will be affected most once the mining of Uranium by African Energy Resources commences in Siavonga are Sikoongo and Chipepo Chiefdoms.
The villagers in Chipepo Chiefdom said yesterday that they would only allow the mining activities in the two Chiefdoms if their demands are met by investors and the government.
The citizens are demanding for two big Hospitals, high schools, good water supply, roads, electricity and employment for the youths once the mining activities start.
“CCZ is trying to help the government to come up with a specific policy that is going to put up guidelines to protect you, your environment and the animal asUranium mining commences. This policy is going to outline the number of people who are going to be employed and the benefits that this community is supposed to get. Once its ready we will get back to you as it will help you claim for your demands from the investors,” said Ms. Ilunga.
Meanwhile CCZ Policy and Advocacy officer Mr. Alcino Moiana said in Chipepo that CCZ is not anti- Uranium but it has been formed to make sure that people’s demands and rights are met by the government and the investors.
He urged the Chiefs and their people to cooperate and unity in order to benefit for the mineral resources which he said belong to them.
Africa Energy Resources is expected to start Uranium mining on a joint venture, the Kariba Valley Joint venture project where it holds a 30 percent interest, with Albidon Limited holding 70 percent.
ZANNIS
Labels: CCZ, CHIEFS, URANIUM
Read more...
Karonga locals take on uranium miners
August 25, 2011
A community task team from Malawi’s northern region district of Karonga has petitioned government for access to information that will enable them to effectively monitor mining activities in the area for compliance with fundamental human rights and labour standards.
They petitioned the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Environment, the Department of Environmental Affairs, the Department of Mines and the Ministry of Labour.
The Karonga Natural Resources Justice Committee (KANRJC), which submitted the petition, was formed specifically to oversee natural resources and development issues that affect the general public in Karonga.
Their groundbreaking initiative seeks to use provisions in Malawi’s environmental protection laws that guarantee citizens’ access to information in order to protect their communities’ health, environmental, property and labour rights.
In particular, KANRJC seeks information on the operations at Kayelekera Uranium Mine and Mwabulambo Coal Mine. It is concerned for compliance with environmental and safety standards at the mines, land allocation for mining without proper compensation being provided to the dispossessed land owners and delivery on undertakings by the mining companies in terms of development agreements with the government of Malawi.
Kayelekera's Paladin uranium mine site in Karonga
The Kayelekera Uranium Mine is the first uranium mine in Malawi. It is operated by Australian company Paladin Energy Ltd. The government of Malawi offered the company a reduced regime of corporate and rent tax in exchange for a fifteen percent stake in the project.
While the extraction of uranium is a dangerous activity that poses risks to the local community’s health, life and livelihood, these risks are increased where the activities are not strictly regulated, managed and monitored.
Mwabulambo Coal Mine is operated by Eland Coal Mining Company. Residents of villages situated close to the mine complain that they and their families have suffered illness as a result of the mining operation. They are also concerned about the land allocated the mine and the provision of compensation where families are forced to relocate.
Luke Tembo, Information Officer of the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR), which forms part of KANRJC, said of the initiative: “We recognize that mining operations can contribute significantly to Malawi’s development and poverty alleviation but all Malawians need to benefit from these operations. Mining can’t happen at the cost of peoples’ health, their land, their livelihoods”.
In addition to CHRR, KANRJC comprises the Uraha Foundation, Citizens for Justice, Young Politicians Union, Karonga Women Forum, Focus, Ngerenge Community Based Organisation and two village headmen from the area.
The petition is supported by Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) in partnership with the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), whose right to information program uses litigation to develop the right of access to information in Africa.
It was filed in terms of the Environmental Management Act and the Constitution which allow for access to both general and specific environmental information held by state organs. The petition seeks various documents relating to:
- Environmental and safety inspections and programmes conducted by the government.
- Development agreements with the government.
- Land allocated for the mining activities as per the licences issued to the mining companies and amounts of money disbursed or allocated for relocation and compensation of displaced villagers.
- Information concerning the state of human health and conditions of human life in as much as they are affected by the mining operations.
In recent weeks large-scale protests have taken place in Malawi with demonstrators voicing their discontent at the state’s inability to ensure that average Malawians can provide for their day to day costs. Fuel shortage, decreased income and a rise in food costs, were primary concerns.
Says Tembo: “With the government looking to make mining a chief forex earner for Malawi, transparency and accountability in these operations is needed right from the beginning, if they are to boost Malawi’s export GDP and serve all Malawians.”
Labels: MINING, URANIUM
Read more...
Malawi gets $50m Iran aid for mining
Iran has given $50 million in aid to develop Malawi’s mining industry, the two countries said on Thursday July 28, two days after the United States suspended an aid package following a deadly crackdown on protests.
“We have had very strong diplomatic relations and it is our obligation to support developing countries such as Malawi,” Iran’s charge d’affaires Bahman Ahmadi said in a statement issued by Malawi’s development ministry.
Bingu snunned by West turns to Iran
“In total, the Islamic Republic of Iran has committed $400 million of development assistance to developing countries, of which $50 million will be given to Malawi,” Ahmadi said in the statement.
Malawi’s small mining industry is dominated by a uranium mine in the north of the country, owned by Australia’s Paladin, which accounts for about five percent of gross domestic product.
“For a long time, Malawi’s economy has relied heavily on agricultural production but our economy needs to diversify if we are to experience further sustained economic growth,” development minister Abbie Shawa said in the statement.
“Challenges were being faced in areas of training of geological and mining experts, development of databases to store data and information that is crucial to mineral identification, exploration and processing,” Shawa said.
The Iranian aid was announced two days after the United States suspended a $350-million grant for Malawi’s energy sector out of concern over authorities’ crackdown on street protests that left 19 dead last week.
Protesters accused President Bingu wa Mutharika of mismanaging the economy and trampling on democratic rights, but he accused the opposition of attempting a coup.
Britain, another key donor, also suspended aid to Malawi this month out of concern over economic management and governance.
Iran’s uranium enrichment programme is at the centre of a bitter row between Tehran and major world powers, with the country under UN sanctions as well as tougher measures by the United States and European Union. -SAPA
Labels: IRAN, MALAWI, URANIUM
Read more...
COMMENT - 1,500,000,000 tonnes, even at $3000 per tonne, would be $4,500,000,000,000 or $4.5 trillion dollars. So if that is not a typo, Zambia's future is ensured if it's resources are in it's own hands. Presuming that this is not a typo, or that someone can't count. Or Ndinawe Simpelwe means copper ore, and not copper.
This is why I would like to start an Africa-wide initiative, to ensure that all raw materials in Africa are sold to the state at cost only, and sold by the state at international market prices only.
Barrick projects 1.5bn tonnes of copper at new Lumwana site
By Ndinawe Simpelwe in Solwezi
Tue 28 June 2011, 09:10 CAT
BARRICK, the new owner of Lumwana Copper Mines has estimated another 1.5 billion tonnes of copper at the new Chimiwungo mining site at Lumwana. Barrick general manager Adam Wright said drilling works at the site had identified an additional ore chute east of Chimiwungo.
“Resource is only constrained by drilling to the east and south. Equinox were preparing a feasibility study for an expansion to a 45 Mtpa prior to Barrick take over,” Wright said.
He said Chimiwungo would be the mainstay of Lumwana for many years to come adding that the mine would be significant not only to Zambia but the world.
“Barrick arrival is well timed because it is at a time that Lumwana is expanding. Barrick has the money and the equipment to carry out the projects,” he said.
Wright could, however, not disclose the level of investment the company would pump in and said the exploration works were still on going. Barrick recently bought shares in Lumwana from Equinox.
He said the expansion of Lumwana mines through Chimiwungo would benefit the country because copper prices were expected to remain high following increased demand from China and India.
“One of the reason we took over from Equinox is to see the growth potential on the copper side. Last year, North Western Province produced more copper than the Copperbelt and that shows you that there is a shift in development.
North Western will be the centre of new developments for the country,” Wright said.
He said production of copper at Lumwana had doubled from the time Barrick took over from Equinox adding that over 2,300 local people had been employed.
“Zambia is a good place to do business looking at the mining culture, good multi-party democracy, good institutional capacity and it’s a signatory to EITI,” he said.
And Wright said the company had no immediate plans to start uranium mining because it was concentrating on expanding copper production.
He said the company needed about US $2 million dollars to start uranium mining.
“There are no immediate plans for Uranium as we don't have the market and we need about US$ 2 million,” he said.
Labels: COPPER, LUMWANA MINING COMPANY, URANIUM
Read more...
COMMENT - So gaining government revenue from the mining industry is 'plainly bad business'. As I guess is collecting dividend payments on the shares that you own. And now Rupiah Banda is crying over road accident victims - killed on potholed roads. I guess they could have used the money after all. Let's get serious.
Namibia seeks mineral windfall tax: minister
Tue May 17, 2011 4:45pm GMT
REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko
By Servaas van den Bosch
WINDHOEK (Reuters) - Namibia is looking to introduce a minerals windfall tax to enable the state to benefit more from the country's vast mineral resources, Mines and Energy minister Isak Katali said on Tuesday.
The move is the latest by Namibia, home to some of the world's largest uranium reserves, to increase its share of the money made by mining companies. Investors were already worried by its recent decision to grant any future rights to strategic minerals, including uranium, to a state company.
"It is my view that as the custodian of the mineral resources, the state should also benefit in good times beyond normal taxes and royalties," Katali said in his opening speech at the annual general meeting of the Namibian Chamber of Mines.
"In bad times, it is the same government that the industry will look to for measures aimed at protecting and supporting the industry to weather the storm until good times are back again. I am talking about windfall taxes to enable government to achieve this objective."
He then asked the chamber to provide him with proposals for a tax system that would boost state revenue.
Mike Leech, the chamber's president and also the managing director of Rio Tinto's Rossing mine, said he was surprised by the minister's announcement.
"This was just thrown in by the minister, although it has been talked about in the past. We need to sit down and think about this," he told Reuters.
Namibia produces 10 percent of the world's uranium, but with new mines coming on stream, output is expected to quadruple within the next few years.
Two operating uranium miners in Namibia include the Rossing mine and Paladin Energy's Langer Heinrich mine.
Future potential producers include Areva's Trekkopje mine and Extract Resources' Rossing South project.
Earlier this year, a South African minister key in economic policy-making said that Africa's biggest economy was also thinking about overhauling its minerals tax regime to cash in on high commodity prices.
Zambia's President Rupiah Banda, on the contrary, ruled out windfall taxes for mining companies, which have been enjoying record copper prices, saying in March that changing the rules for foreign investors was plainly bad business.
Spot uranium on Tuesday stood at $56.50 per pound, down from a record around $136 in June 2007.
Labels: NAMIBIA, URANIUM, WINDFALL TAX
Read more...
COMMENT - Now that's leverage. I would say the US should be ready to lift economic sanctions, pay reparations and issue a public apoligy for destroying the Zimbabwean economy.
US warns Zimbabwe over Iran uranium plan
by Staff Reporter
09/03/2011 00:00:00
THE United States has warned Zimbabwe there would be serious ramifications if it cooperates with Iran’s nuclear programme in violation of United Nations resolutions.
U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Washington was concerned over recent statements by Foreign Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi that United Nations sanctions on Iran were unfair and hypocritical.
"We are concerned by statements that would suggest that Zimbabwe would be open to cooperating with Iran in ways that violate U.N. Security Council resolutions," he told reporters.
"The foreign minister of Zimbabwe is entitled to his opinion but the government of Zimbabwe is still bound by its commitments to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions," Crowley said.
"There are ramifications for countries that decline to observe their international obligations.”
Mumbengegwi told Iranian news agency ISNA on Thursday last week that Zimbabwe was willing to work with Iran on extracting uranium resources meant for Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.
“Zimbabwe holds rich resources, but the problem we face is lack of budget, finance and required technical equipment to take the very rich resources out and use them,” ISNA reported Mumbengegwi as saying.
It has been known for many years that uranium deposits lie in the Zambezi River valley but were not exploited due to low uranium prices. It is estimated that the country’s Kanyemba Mine holds more than 45,000 tons of uranium ore with over 20,000 tons extractible.
Mumbengegwi also criticised attempts by Western countries to sanction Iran over its nuclear programme, saying "those making claims on Iran's enrichment work hold nuclear weapons and hostile nuclear programme."
"Any country has the right to use peaceful nuclear energy based on international rules," he added.
Labels: IRAN, SIMBARASHE MUMBENGEGWI, URANIUM
Read more...
Zimbabwe keen to supply Iran with uranium: Mumbengegwi
by Staff Reporter
03/03/2011 00:00:00
ZIMBABWE is keen to work with Iran in exploiting its untapped uranium deposits, Foreign Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi said.
Mumbengegwi told Iranian news agency ISNA on Thursday that Zimbabwe was willing to work with Iran on extracting uranium resources meant for Tehran's controversial nuclear programme.
“Zimbabwe holds rich resources, but the problem we face is lack of budget, finance and required technical equipment to take the very rich resources out and use them,” ISNA reported Mumbengegwi as saying.
It has been known for many years that uranium deposits lie in the Zambezi River valley but were not exploited due to low uranium prices. It is estimated that the country’s Kanyemba mine holds more than 45,000 tons of uranium ore with over 20,000 tons extractible.
Mumbengegwi also criticised attempts by Western countries to sanction Iran over its nuclear program, saying "those making claims on Iran's enrichment work hold nuclear weapons and hostile nuclear program."
"Any country has the right to use peaceful nuclear energy based on international rules," he added.
Zimbabwe has also been under Western sanctions over allegations of rights abuses and suspected electoral fraud.
Mumbengegwi said that sanctions "against the two countries are not accidental."
"Western states follow the approach of sanction towards countries which do not yield to their domination and act against their interests," he said, adding that "any impartial observer can testify that the southern African country is one of the most democratic countries in the continent and has never violated human rights."
He insisted that that any "sanction should be approved by the UN General Assembly since it involves many countries and it should not be allowed that few countries misuse other ones."
Iran says it is enriching solely to power a future network of nuclear reactors. But the country has been targeted by United Nations sanctions because enrichment can also create fissile warhead material — and because of its nuclear secrecy and refusal to cooperate with IAEA probes into its activities.
Labels: IRAN, URANIUM
Read more...
Paladin justify dismissal of Malawian workers at Kayelekera
By Nyasa Times
Published: October 4, 2010
Paladin Energy Ltd., an Australian company that mines uranium at Kayelekera in Malawi’s northern region has said there was nothing wrongful in the dismissal of Chief Chemist Stacy Luhanga and Rex Chatambalala.
Greg Walker, Paladin’s General Manager-International Affairs, said in a statement that the workers at the Kayelekera Uranium mine were dismissed after being given a fair hearing.
“Mr Luhanga was cautioned by Kayelekera mine management in July over allegations he had made to various employees concerning an alleged relationship between two expatriate employees, which he claimed had resulted in discriminatory behaviour being displayed towards him,” explained Walker.
“A conference involving all the parties was held on site on 22 July in an attempt to mediate the issue. Mr Luhunga was told by the individuals concerned that no such relationship existed. He was invited to withdraw his allegations and advised to desist from repeating them to other staff members. He refused to do so and was then advised that he would be required to substantiate his claims.
“ He was further advised that if he could do so, action would be taken against them; if not, he would be held accountable for slandering the individuals concerned and would face appropriate disciplinary action,” said Paladin’s boss.
Walker said Paladin held a disciplinary hearing last week, where Luhunga was represented by legal counsel.
“He was unable to produce any evidence to support his allegations and, as a consequence, his employment with the Company was terminated,” said the General Manager.
He said the Nyasa Times “compounded the hurt and injury” caused to the individuals concerned by naming them and repeating Luhanga’s “unsubstantiated” sex-relationship claims of the bosses.
Paladin also explained the recent dismissal of Rex Chatambalala, saying they fired him for placing a container of uranium oxide in a clothes drier used by other employees, in clear contravention of the Company’s policies and procedures in relation to the handling of Kayelekera product.
“The circumstances of this event were thoroughly investigated and Mr Chatambalala could offer no credible reason for his actions and, accordingly, was dismissed,” said the General Manager.
He said Paladin (Africa) Ltd takes the welfare of all of its employees – both Malawian and expatriate – very seriously and will not tolerate actions – either physical or verbal – which might cause harm or distress to any of its employees.
Paladin said Nyasa Times earlier article inflamed “racial tensions”.
Labels: LABOUR, PALADIN ENERGY AFRICA, URANIUM
Read more...
African Energy Resources to start uranium mining when metal price improves
By Bivan Saluseki in Siavonga
Mon 04 Oct. 2010, 04:01 CAT
AFRICAN Energy Resources Limited project manager Wiscort Banda has said the company is ready to start mining uranium in Siavonga once the price of the metal improves. And Denison Mines project director for Africa Andrew Goode said uranium was not as dangerous as it had been portrayed in Zambia. Banda said on Friday that the mine had prospected 11 million pounds of uranium in Kariba Valley.
He said once in operation, African Energy would mine about 1.4 million pounds a year once the price was a bit favourable. He said currently, the price of uranium was about US$ 48 per pound (2.8 kgs).
Banda said to break even, the price should be between US $60 and US $70.
“Once price behaves, we will start mining,” he said.
Banda said African Energy wanted to start mining in 2009 but they rescheduled it.
Banda said geologists and engineers project 11 million pounds of uranium with a mine lifespan of eight years.
He said since the price was not very favourable currently, they were using this time to do more exploration and strategising to increase the life span of the mine.
Banda said uranium could either be inhaled through dust emissions or ingested.
He said the company would take all the necessary precautions to make sure people were not affected when mining the metal.
Banda said 150 households would be relocated and provided with better accommodation and other support services.
African Energy controls more than 200km strike-length of prospective rocks in Kariba Valley.
Feasibility studies indicate that this could form the basis of a low-cost 8-year mining operation with production commencing as early as the first quarter of 2012. Exploration programmes in 2010 are expected to define additional resources which may extend the proposed mine life.
And Goode said the mine would relocate 343 people and provide them with necessary items to start a new life.
Goode said the company had agreed with the local people to exhume the bodies within the mining area and rebury them where people would be resettled. Look out for an in-depth story on Siavonga’s uranium mining in this Sunday’s Lifestyle.
Labels: AFRICAN ENERGY RESOURCES, ANDREW GOODE, ENERGY, MINING, URANIUM, WISCORT BANDA
Read more...
CCZ warns govt over ‘uranium’
By Darious Kapembwa in Kitwe
Sun 05 Sep. 2010, 04:30 CAT
THE Christian Council of Zambia (CCZ) says uranium is a serious danger to mines without a stringent safety policy in place. And Kitwe’s Anglican Priest Fr Richard Luonde has said mineral resources were not a curse but poor management of these resources was.
The duo was speaking during a MISA-Zambia programme on Catholic-run Radio Icengelo under the topic ‘The extractive industry’ on Friday. CCZ member Evans Lubala said that uranium mining was a dangerous venture to start without taking into consideration the safety measures on the ordinary citizens.
“We are shocked by the way government is treating the uranium. There is no policy to safeguard the interests of the Zambian people. Which mother or father can start a family without a plan?” He asked.
“Uranium is ranked the world’s highly hazardous mineral and there is need to care of the dangerous factors before any contract to mine the mineral is signed.”
He said Uranium mining in Canada started in 1958 in an area called Elliot where 70 million examples of hazardous remains were still evident.
Lubala asked whether the government had toured the areas where Denson, a Canadian company intending to start uranium mining in the country, started operations to see for themselves what had been left behind.
And Fr Luonde said that the problems coming out of the mining sector were as a result authorities rushing to sign contracts.
“It’s not a curse to have minerals. The problem is that we rush to sign contracts. A contract is a legal document but you see, we sign low-grade contracts. Contracts are supposed to be high grade that benefits the owners of minerals, but we have a situation where things have been taken out of the country without anyone questioning,” he said.
Fr Luonde said Zambians will have to look back one day and ask themselves why they had done what they had done with the extractive industry.
“If there is any signs of corruption within the ministry that handles the extractive industry, it becomes very dangerous and Zambians must be very careful as long as the EITI Extractive Industry Transparency Index is government driven, nothing will come out of it,” said Fr Luonde.
Labels: CCZ, RICHARD LUONDE, URANIUM
Read more...
Equinox president notes misinformation on uranium mining
By Chiwoyu Sinyangwe
Wed 01 Sep. 2010, 15:10 CAT
EQUINOX Minerals Limited president Graig Williams has said there is a campaign of disinformation on uranium mining in the country. Equinox Minerals Limited is the parent company for Lumwana Mine which is currently stockpiling uranium mined as a by-product of copper.
So far, about 4.2 million tonnes of uranium has been stockpiled at Lumwana mine and exports are expected to commence in 2013 when international uranium prices make export of the energy metal used in nuclear reactors commercially viable.
In an interview at the cocktail held in honour of Equinox Minerals Limited board that visited the country, Williams said the uranium at Lumwana mine was being treated in accordance with international standards as well as set out guidelines by the Environmental Council of Zambia (ECZ).
“We are mining the uranium within the big copper ore body and the area is quite small,” Williams said.
“As we mine the copper, we also mine that uranium ore and stockpile it. We have designed the plant to extract that uranium…we are ready to start to produce uranium, we will put in place off-take arrangements as marketing arrangements. But for now the uranium price internationally is not sufficiently attractive but I would think that within two - three years, it should improve. So, at that time, we will seek the licence from the government to export uranium. We have a licence in place to mine and process uranium.”
Williams said mining uranium was not dangerous to the country’s environment or people living near the mine.
“We have recently heard in Zambia that mining uranium is dangerous…the fact is that the level of uranium we are mining is very low and so, environmental, health and safety risk is very low and we have very rigorous programme in place to ensure the safety of our people and the community. That is not an issue,” said Williams.
“I think there has been a campaign of disinformation on uranium that is not based on fact. The fact is that we have gone through a vigorous environmental approval by Environmental Council of Zambia and we have applied international standards and our project has got all that.”
With the current estimated ore body of 900 million tonnes of copper resource at Lumwana mine, uranium comprises about eight million tonnes.
And mines minister Maxwell Mwale said the government will not reintroduce the windfall tax on the mining sector to protect expansion and support the development of new mines.
“I would like to assure the equinox board that under the leadership of President Rupiah Bwezani Banda, there will be no windfall tax,” said Mwale. “We would like to see increased activity in the industry.”
Labels: EQUINOX, URANIUM
Read more...
