Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: South Africa

  • Makoma Lekalakala | In Her Own Words

    Makoma Lekalakala | In Her Own Words

    Tell me a little bit about your journey as an activist and how you landed on environmental activism.

    It was not just a personal journey but rather a journey of a collective. From its inception, Earthlife Africa, the environmental justice organization I work for, has been an anti-nuclear organization. When the government started looking at nuclear energy, we tried talking with them. Our talks were not very fruitful until a Russian partner organization notified us of an intergovernmental agreement South Africa had signed with an energy company, ‘Rosatom’. In the agreement, if things didn’t go right with the nuclear reactors, Rosatom would not be held responsible – it would be South Africa’s responsibility.

    We started talking to more and more organizations. Liz McDaid, “Eco-Justice Lead” for the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, and I, filed the founding affidavit for the case and she provided a supporting affidavit on behalf of her organization. Our case was grounded in South Africa’s Bill of Rights that states, “everyone has a right to a safe environment.”

    Ultimately, we decided to take the issue to court because the doors were closed no matter how much we knocked. Our campaign brought various organizations together on this one issue, as energy issues intersect in nearly all other interests. I think the pressure that people exerted on the government is actually the key that brought us to where we are today and partially why we were awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize. We’ve been saying that the prize is not my prize, it’s not her prize, it’s our prize, as South Africans. We’re all in this together.

    One of the concerns of this campaign was how the government of South Africa did not allow transparency or citizen engagement on this issue. Is changing that dynamic a lasting legacy of this campaign in South Africa?

    We hope that in the future, the government will be much more transparent and allow people to become part of decision-making processes. The lack of transparency and prevalence of corruption were issues that were addressed in the court ruling. The government had acted unconstitutionally and unlawfully with respect to the peoples’ right to information, and their rights to express themselves. They had also violated policies that deal with procurement issues in South Africa. These rights are enshrined into the Constitution. These types of processes are supposed to be public, and we hope that from the court ruling, things will be done differently.

    Part of your work is aimed at encouraging the engagement of women, specifically women of color, in environmental fights. What are the key barriers to that engagement now, and how are you working to mitigate those barriers?

    That’s ongoing work. It is more about how to expand those efforts. In South Africa, ordinary women who are impacted negatively by policies have never been part of decision making processes. Often, information is presented in very scientific, academic and economic language. This is not the language that ordinary people speak. That’s one of the barriers we can change. We can demystify information. There are more women in the world than men, so it’s women who should be at the forefront of these issues and in decision-making roles.

    Within this campaign, women were much more active than any other group. So, this victory was a victory for women. It’s quite important however for us to make sure that the activism continues and doesn’t end here.

    Much of my future work is to ensure that we get more women involved because women are much closer to issues. They bear the burden of injustices, whether environmental, social or economic. As people in the world, there should not be any discrimination, whether it’s against men or women. It’s up to women to take up this issue in order to play a role and have a say in decisions that impact their futures.

    What concerns you most about nuclear developments and how has your work as an environmental activist and women’s rights activist informed your work on nuclear issues?

    Nuclear is painted as the energy for the future and we are told nuclear energy is climate neutral. Nuclear energy is not climate neutral. The nuclear fuel chain is carbon intensive, and the construction of nuclear reactors takes a very long time. The country cannot afford to build nuclear reactors, so that means that we have to borrow money. The cost overruns are going to make this kind of electricity very expensive. A lot of South Africans would not be able to access it in their lifetimes because it takes so long to deliver. They’ll be living in everlasting debt for generations to come. The other concern is the waste. The high-level waste is stored next to the plants themselves. Low-level waste is stored about 600 kilometers away from the plant. There, the soil is poisoned and the vegetation is dying, impacting people who live nearby with dangerously high levels of radioactivity.

    Another key issue is around water. Nuclear energy requires a lot of water, and in the Southern African countries we are water scarce. We need a ‘least cost’ energy option which does not have collateral costs that would come from the nuclear fuel dangers. When people have access to electricity, it should be electricity that is not harmful to them.

    What unique intersections do you see women specifically being affected by nuclear issues?

    The direct link I see is around energy poverty. It will benefit women because billions, even trillions of Rands won’t be spent in order to have a decentralized electric system. Women are also the caretakers in society. With the effects of radioactivity, it is women who often take care of those who are sick, those who develop cancers, or children born with various types of defects. It’s women who would be caring for them continuously.

    How do you think this campaign was impacted because of the fact that it was led by women? As you said, the campaign was fueled and dominated by women – staying loud and present in the streets.

    The campaign, though we were mainly women, still had men who participated, and we complemented each other very well. We didn’t even realize that there were more women in the campaign until one journalist raised that point. For us, it was the norm. In other organizations, there are men and women, some led by women, others led by men. It was a combination of the two stepping up and taking up the initiative together.

    You and Liz McDaid were up against some incredibly powerful forces and you’ve mentioned some threats of violence in previous interviews. How did power play out in the campaign and how you were able to overcome any discrepancies?

    Mostly what we experienced, and this is normal in any society, is that when you find yourself with different views held by other people, your situation depends on how you react to those different views. We live in a country of complexities, so even if somebody differs with you or says things that are negative or threatening, that is something one must expect in any situation where you differ with others.

    Both myself and Liz [McDaid] come from the [Apartheid] liberation struggle. We’ve been through a lot. As an activist from that age and time you say, ‘this is what I want to see happening’ and you expect to encounter the negatives from that. What is important is maintaining clarity of purpose.

    Lastly, what are you focused on now?

    I have three focuses. The first is monitoring what is coming from the government. Last October, we had to take the government to court again because there were still pronouncements saying that nuclear was intended to be part of the energy mix. The second focus is to build upon the momentum we’ve established in order to get more women continually involved in this campaign. We need women to understand the legislation and policy around the issue and to put a human face to energy policy in this country. Thirdly, we are aware that Rosatom has signed various intergovernmental agreements for cooperation with other African countries. We are now stepping into civil society within different countries to build a pan-African anti-nuclear movement.
    Just to add a quick note – my work is not only focused on anti-nuclear struggles; my work is also focused on coal struggles. What I would say is that we’re working on ‘energy democracy’ – making sure that there is energy democracy and energy justice in South Africa.

    Makoma Lekalakala grew up in the Soweto township of Johannesburg, a hub for resistance during South Africa’s Apartheid. She became a young activist at her church, engaged in a range of issues that included women’s rights, social, economic and environmental justice.

    Today, Lekalakala is the director at Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, a group designed  “to encourage women to become more involved in energy and climate policy-making.” Through her work at Earthlife Africa, Lekalakala recently teamed up with fellow environmental activist Liz McDaid of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI). Together, after learning about a secret agreement between South Africa and Russia, she and McDaid spearheaded a women-led effort to challenge government corruption and nuclear energy policy.

    Recognized for their tiresome and often highly dangerous efforts, Lekalakala and McDaid were awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2018.

  • Joint Statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons

    This statement was delivered by South Africa on behalf of 74 countries at the Non-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom in Geneva, Switzerland.

    I am taking the floor on behalf of the following States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), namely Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte D’Ivoire, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Samoa, Singapore, Swaziland, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia and my own country South Africa.

    Our countries are deeply concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. While this has been known since nuclear weapons were first developed and is reflected in various UN resolutions and multilateral instruments, it has not been at the core of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation deliberations for many years.  Although it constitutes the raison d’être of the NPT, which cautions against the “devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples”, this issue has consistently been ignored in the discourse on nuclear weapons.

    Yet, past experience from the use and testing of nuclear weapons has amply demonstrated the unacceptable harm caused by the immense, uncontrollable destructive capability and indiscriminate nature of these weapons. The effects of a nuclear weapon detonation are not constrained by national borders – it is therefore an issue of deep concern to all.  Beyond the immediate death and destruction caused by a detonation, socio-economic development will be impeded, the environment will be destroyed, and future generations will be robbed of their health, food, water and other vital resources.

    In recent years, the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has increasingly been recognised as a fundamental and global concern that must be at the core of all deliberations on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. This issue is now firmly established on the global agenda: The 2010 Review Conference of the NPT expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”.  Similarly, the 2011 resolution of the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement emphasised the incalculable human suffering associated with any use of nuclear weapons, and the implications for international humanitarian law.

    The March 2013 Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo presented a platform to engage in a fact-based discussion on the impact of a nuclear weapon detonation. The broad participation at the Conference reflects the recognition that the catastrophic effects of a detonation are of concern and relevance to all.  A key message from experts and international organisations is that no State or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a nuclear weapon detonation or provide adequate assistance to victims.  We warmly welcome Mexico’s announcement of a follow-up Conference to further broaden and deepen understanding of this matter and the resolve of the international community to address the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

    It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances. The catastrophic effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, whether by accident, miscalculation or design, cannot be adequately addressed.  All efforts must be exerted to eliminate this threat.  The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.  It is a shared responsibility of all States to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, to prevent their vertical and horizontal proliferation and to achieve nuclear disarmament, including through fulfilling the objectives of the NPT and achieving its universality.  The full implementation of the 2010 Action Plan and previous outcomes aimed at achieving the objectives of the NPT must therefore not be postponed any further.

    Addressing the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons is an absolute necessity. As an element that underpins the NPT, it is essential that the humanitarian consequences inform our work and actions during the current Review Cycle and beyond.

    This is an issue that affects not only governments, but each and every citizen of our interconnected world.  By raising awareness about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, civil society has a crucial role to play, side-by-side with governments, as we fulfil our responsibilities.  We owe it to future generations to work together to rid our world of the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

    I thank you.

  • Archbishop Desmond Tutu

    David KriegerOne of the strong focuses of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is Peace Leadership. Since the creation of the Foundation, we have encouraged leadership for peace and tried to shine a light on it. For 28 years, we have given an annual award for Distinguished Peace Leadership to some of the greatest Peace Leaders of our time. In giving these awards, our purpose has been not only to honor outstanding peace leaders, but to inspire others, particularly young people, to greater commitment in building a more peaceful and decent world. 


    In 1990, we had the great pleasure of honoring Archbishop Tutu. Actually, the honor we bestowed upon him paled in comparison to the honor he bestowed upon us by accepting. His acceptance speech upon receiving our award was entitled “God’s Dream,” and was published in the Foundation’s anthology, Waging Peace II. 


    In his acceptance speech, Archbishop Tutu pointed out, “A minute fraction of what nations spend on their budgets of death would be enough to ensure that children everywhere had adequate housing, a clean supply of water, adequate health facilities, and proper education. People would live with a sense of fulfillment and not labor under stressful anxiety that is caused by the uncertainties of what the future holds. Many, especially young people, ask whether life is worth living when it is lived under the shadow of the mushroom cloud.” 


    Though more than 20 years have passed since he uttered those words and since the Cold War ended, we and our children continue to live under that mushroom cloud and we continue to spend vast amounts globally on our militaries rather than on our common good. We fight unnecessary wars and develop new instruments of long-distance killing rather than building a world we can be proud to pass on to our children.


    Archbishop Tutu is one of the great men of our time. He played a leading role in the movement to end apartheid in South Africa. He then led the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission, bringing a new process for healing to his country and to the world. The world badly needs such social innovation to keep pace with the technological innovations that have put civilization and humankind in danger of annihilation.


    For over 20 years, the Archbishop has served on the Advisory Council of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, where he has offered his advice and support. In 2002, Archbishop Tutu wrote the foreword for an anthology connected with the Foundation’s twentieth anniversary, Hope in a Dark Time. In his foreword, he wrote:


    “I have had many blessings in my life. One of the greatest of these has been to witness the power of forgiveness. In the aftermath of the apartheid regime in South Africa, we chose the path of forgiveness and reconciliation. As the Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I learned first-hand the transformative nature of forgiveness. It is a power that can cleanse the human heart and free us from hatred and bloodlust. I am convinced there is no future without forgiveness, and in forgiveness there is hope we can put an end to wars and violence.”


    Archbishop Tutu is the Archbishop emeritus of Capetown. Among his many honors, he is a Nobel Peace Laureate. He is a humble and decent man, a man who makes us proud of our common humanity and inspires us to be better and to build a better world. 

  • Apartheid in the Holy Land

    In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

    What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I’ve been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

    On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

    I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said:”Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews.”

    My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

    Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won’t let ambulances reach the injured.

    The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

    Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or — I hope — to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.

    We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?

    My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: “I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro- freedom. I am anti-injustice, anti-oppression.”

    But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

    People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful — very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God’s world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

    Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.

    We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.

     

    Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. A longer version appears in the current edition of Church Times.