CTBT
Before replying to Allen Myer's "CTBT: don't be fooled" (GLW #252), might I just point out that I wrote that the fate of the Soviet Union (not the fact of the Soviet Union) should be enough evidence to show that nuclear weapons do not provide security.
Gar Alperovitz in his book Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (Pluto Press) shows quite clearly that US possession of the atom bomb, and its use against Japan, did not deter the Soviet Union from pursuing its vital strategic objectives, even before the Soviets acquired the bomb themselves.
In the final analysis the strongest argument for demonstrating now for India to sign the CTBT rather than for the US to prepare a non-hypocritical CTBT that the Indians can sign is that to do the latter is to send a signal that the only real "players" in international politics are nuclear-armed states. The message would be that if you want Uncle Sam to take you seriously, acquire a nuclear arsenal.
This is the message that the Indian ruling class (and the Pakistani masses and ruling class) would read from the spectacle of the United States bending to the pressure of the Indian government and providing a CTBT that the Indians can sign.
Wayne Hall
Athens
Immigration
Nowhere in Jorge Andres' article titled "Why we should support immigration" does he produce any argument to support that headline (GLW #252). Some of his statements are fallacious, some preposterous and some incomprehensible.
E.g. I have never heard anyone in the environment movement express the view "that salvation comes out of the hand of corporate profitability and benevolence". Where is it "taboo to suggest that, really, the only good business is a publicly owned and managed business"?
GLW journalists have this habit of putting up such straw men when the argument touches on population.
Andres' remarks about "real" Australians are incomprehensible. How can a "real" Australian have more in common with a "wog" than with other "real" Australians? (The terms used are Andres'.) How does "the political manipulation of gender, colour and other differences" serve to promote "social cohesion"?
His most preposterous statement is "most of coastal Australia could sustain large increases in population" if political will existed to invest in infrastructure, etc. As the world's fuel oil supplies will be almost depleted and prohibitively expensive in forty years, too expensive for agriculture, how will these people feed themselves? Or power their houses? Or dispose of their wastes? What will they drink? What are these jobs that could be "created"? And why should human beings destroy more and more native habitat to house their proliferating offspring?
Col Friel
Alawa NT
Independence
Attending the November 9 Dili Massacre commemorative mass at St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney, I became uneasy during the sermon when I realised the priest was prepared to call for many positive things, like withdrawal of Indonesian troops, protection of human rights and acceptance of the refugees in Australia, but not for independence for East Timor.
It reminded me of a recent conversation I had with a representative of Community Aid Abroad who told me that it was not realistic to call for independence and that the solidarity movement stands on a moralistic high horse by focusing on that. CAA wants to stand apart from the solidarity movement, she said.
I think a particular agenda (and an artificial division) has been pushed into the movement without most supporters of East Timor noticing. I think it would be useful if these different perspectives were openly and democratically aired in 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳, in the same manner as the current conservation movement debate in these pages.
Barry Healy
Sydney