Our readers share their thoughts on Zapiro, nuclear power, the Integrated Resource Plan and more.
Yes, Zapiro, Bibi is a victorious fighter
Last week Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu accomplished the impossible. He managed to serve United States President Barack Obama a large helping of crow after his May 19 speech in which the US leader outlined his plans for a new Middle East. Obama’s plan left many wondering if he had the best interests of the Middle East at heart or if he was just naive.
Obama’s idea that Israel should return to the “1967 borders” only served to raise the ire of the Israeli public for several reasons: Israel has no defined borders. The “1967 borders” are armistice lines and not concrete borders. Giving up strategic territory that includes the Golan Heights would invite annihilation of the Jewish state.
Zapiro’s cartoon of Netanyahu as a gladiator in the arena (May 27) makes one very salient and impressive point. Netanyahu did in fact prove himself to be quite the warrior during his impassioned speech to the US Congress, receiving no fewer than 20 standing ovations.
But then, as he has done so frequently in the past, Zapiro once again laid the blame for the stalling of the peace process squarely at the feet of Israel, while portraying the Palestinians as short-changed victims. I live in Israel. My home, like all Israeli homes, is equipped with a miklat (bomb shelter). Like all Israeli citizens, I have been diligent in ensuring my miklat is well stocked in the event of a war. I have made sure that I understand how my gas mask works.
How, you ask, is this relevant? Let me tell you. Hamas’s continued refusal to acknowledge Israel’s existence, coupled with Mohammed Abbas’s lack of ability to negotiate concessions on the part of the Palestinian Authority, have made Israel understandably weary.
Given that a return to the “1967 borders” will ensure that nearly every Israeli household is in the line of sight of Iranian-sponsored missiles, we are all somewhat reluctant to budge on this point.
We know that any foolhardy move would just invite a war. We are waiting for an assurance from the Palestinians that, should we negotiate final borders, they will be secure.
Yes, Zapiro, Bibi Netanyahu is a gladiator. He understands all too well the players in his neighbourhood and he fights for a mutually assured peace. Mr Netanyahu, the state of Israel stands in ovation. — Rolene Marks, Media Team Israel, Modiin, Israel
All wrong about fast-breeder reactors
Lisa Steyn’s article, “‘Bright future’ for nuclear power” (May 27), is poorly researched and grossly misleading. The opening paragraph gives the disingenuous impression that thorium-fuelled nuclear-reactor technology is currently available. The article later reveals that it is little other than a very distant hope, anywhere between 20 and 50 years into the future.
Her lack of understanding of fast-breeder reactor technology is manifest, as is her confusion about the role thorium can play in that technology. She completely ignores the International Panel on Fissile Materials’ February 2010 report, “Fast-Breeder Reactor Programmes: History and Status”, which would have allowed her to put fast-breeder reactor technology in general, and the Indian thorium-reactor programme in particular, into an appropriate context.
In spite of about $50-billion in funding of fast-breeder reactor technology in the past 60-odd years, the technology is still decades away from realising its original goals. A single quote from the executive summary of the report spells out clearly just how moribund this technology now is: “The problems described in the country case studies in the following chapters make it hard to dispute Admiral Hyman Rickover’s summation in 1956, based on his experience with a sodium-cooled reactor developed to power an early US nuclear submarine, that such reactors are ‘expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair’.
“After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled and efforts to commercialise them have been steadily cut back in most countries.”
The subsequent chapters explore in detail all past and current fast-breeder reactor programmes and support this conclusion abundantly.
Of particular relevance to Steyn’s article are the report’s conclusions on the Indian fast-breeder programme: “Russia and India are building demonstration breeder reactors. In both cases, however, their breeder (and spent fuel reprocessing) programs leave much to be desired regarding the availability of data on reliability, safety and economics. In the case of India, there is also the potential for use of breeder reactors to produce plutonium for weapons.”
While she is correct in her quoted assertion that thorium itself is not well suited to the development of nuclear weapons, Steyn neglects the fact that a fast-breeder reactor with a thorium-blanketed core is particularly efficient at producing weapons-grade plutonium.
This is precisely the type of breeder reactor that India recently announced that it would be commissioning shortly. The continuing tension between Pakistan and India, and the escalation of their respective nuclear-weapons programmes, makes it difficult to believe that the new thorium breeder reactor is intended solely for peaceful deployment.
To suggest that thorium poses a credible solution to the world’s power generation needs is beyond ridiculous. — Norman McFarlane, Somerset West
It is a concern that the government has decided, with no prior discussion on the subject, to commit the country to nuclear electricity generation for decades. It did so in spite of the fact that in the 2010 Integrated Resource Plan it sensibly said it would wait and see how storage and safety costs develop before committing to nuclear generation.
Isn’t it also scary that our energy minister states (before knowing the impact of the Japanese nuclear disaster) that “this communication” about nuclear energy should not be “alarmist”? Whose game is she playing?
The last version of the IRP2 also listed all the electricity-generation criteria (job creation, little cost to government, sustainability, safety, basic and social service, cradle-to-grave carbon production, little environmental impact) that are important for the country. Why has government now chosen nuclear over renewable energy, in spite of the fact that nuclear does not fulfil any of these criteria?
It uses the only argument it has: that nuclear can provide some necessary “base load”. But why should this override all other criteria? Who says that renewable energy will not be able to supply the base load that will be required in 15 years’ time, when nuclear power is operational?
Is government trying to maintain the status quo of centralised control (with Eskom keeping its monopoly in spite of a previous decision to break it) and vested interests linked to big energy-guzzlers such as BHP Billiton and the mines? That monopoly blocks private power producers and any related renewable-energy development in the sector.
Cosatu general secretary Zwelizima Vavi is right when he states that “the current economic model is heading us towards more crises, unemployment and environmental degradation”. Why does government maintain that “growth” be coupled with GDP and mineral beneficiation? At what cost to the people and the environment?
Why does it insist on a development model (growth linked to GDP) that favours capital over human development? It is quite clear that the choice in favour of electricity generation via nuclear is a political decision that goes against the long-term interests of the people. — PL Lemercier, Renewable Energy Centre, Port Elizabeth
No freedom of info, no democracy
The reasons there should be freedom of information in South Africa outweigh the arguments for the Protection of Information Bill (“Shout about the Secrecy Bill“, May 27).
Freedom of information facilitates participatory democracy, which requires more than just the submissive consent of those who are governed. It requires active agreement through real participation in decision-making, which can take a variety of forms, such as consultation of affected interests, the solicitation of representations, appearance at public inquiries and even participation in the deliberations of the decision-making body itself. All this will be irrelevant if only selective information is at the disposal of society.
A democratic and transparent government is what our Constitution has afforded us. The prevalence of checks and balances and the freedom of access to information we have now is what differentiates us, with many other things, from the apartheid regime.
At the moment, we as a society can exert pressure and criticise the errors made by members of government. But if such information is classified as “sensitive” and if such information gets published, the person who reports on it stands to face a hefty fine or term of imprisonment.
The press, most notably, will be affected by the restrictions on information.
This will result in the people being unaware of certain information the government deems it prudent to withhold. If this Bill gets passed, instead of moving forward, South Africa will be taking a step backwards. As a British author said: “Where secrecy or mystery begins, vice or roguery is not far off.” — Aadil Mayet, Durban North
The Mail & Guardian‘s editorial of May 27 asks us to “Shout about the Secrecy Bill“. I do not wish to encourage complacency, but defeatism is also a concern and consequently I would like it known that I am shaking my head in amazement at those who believe the Protection of Information Bill has any hope of being approved by our courts.
Suffice it to say that common-law principles are notoriously difficult to overturn or bypass and that one of these common-law principles provides for someone failing to report a crime to be charged as an accomplice after the fact. Anyone using the Act to cover up corruption or any other crime will be liable to be thus charged. — Terence Grant, Cape Town Youth League leads ANC
Historically, the ANC Youth League has been a political school used to prepare and mould future leaders of the ANC. Those who do all the campaigning for the ANC are between the ages of 14 and 35. They conceptualise campaigns that give it an aura of modernity.
During the dark days of racial oppression, the league called for a radicalised programme of action, which transformed the ANC from a deputation-sending and letter-writing organisation into a militant organisation. The majority of those who volunteered for Umkhonto we Sizwe were young.
Today it is the youth league that has discerned that South Africa’s socioeconomic problems can be mitigated effectively if mineral resources are put under government ownership, for the benefit of all. The leadership of the league has questioned institutionalised colonial patterns of ownership and the manner in which the economy of this country is organised, which entrenches a stratified society, with Africans as the bulk of those expected to sell their labour for survival.
There is a clique of ultra-conservatives in the ANC who have vowed to block youth league graduates from playing a meaningful role in the party, irrespective of material conditions on the ground. Ultra-conservatism in the ANC is not yet fully unmasked, but it abhors the idea of “generational mix” as an epithet of evil. This clique operates just like HIV, hiding itself in the ANC system and striking opportunistically.
These people believe a youth league cadre who has gone through the necessary stages of development and who commands confidence among the rank and file has to be arrested somewhere in an undefined zone before such a cadre becomes eligible for a senior position in the ANC.
North West province experienced a streak of ultra-conservatism when all the members of the league proposed by different regions of the ANC were not considered for mayoral posts. Yet, several appointed mayors are from municipalities under investigation under Section 139 of the Constitution or under investigation by the Special Investigations Unit.
Ultra-conservatives forget that when we took power in 1994 no one had experience of running the country but today South Africa is far ahead in terms of development and political stability compared with its neighbours. The ANC Youth League in North West will not comply with a sham democratic centralism likely to cause the ANC more harm than good. — Jerry Matebesi, ANCYL spokesperson, North West