+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

  1. Link to Post #1
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    72
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Do we believe it was for humanitarian reasons?

    Do we believe that the government woke up smelled the plutonium and said NO more?

    Here is a viewpoint which seems to say what may be a reason why SA removed it's nukes...

    =================

    reference from : http://www.siliconafrica.com/the-dar...apons-in-1990/

    It was back in 1990..

    ==========

    "Why would any country voluntarily dismantle its nuclear weapons which take years and billions to develop?

    South Africa is the only country which ever give up its nuclear dissuasion power.

    But Why? Did they dismantle the country’s nuclear weapons because they believed in a vision of an Africa free of nuclear weapons, as the press reported?

    NO.

    The white apartheid regime didn’t want a Black Nation to possess nuclear weapon, a dissuasive power in our contemporary world.

    Foreseeing a democratic South Africa where Black people will be in power, the white regime destroyed all the country’s main military facilities, ballistics missiles and dismantling all six complete nuclear weapons shortly after the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in 1990.

    South Africa hastily joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and seven weeks later the country signed a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    According to Greg Mills “South African authorities co-operated fully with the IAEA during the whole verification process, and were commended by the then director-general of the Agency in 1992, Dr. Hans Blix, for providing inspectors with unlimited access and data beyond those required by the Safeguards Agreement“

    In less than 3 years all South Africa’s ballistic missiles were scrapped, its six nuclear weapons dismantled, and any remaining missile engines destroyed.

    To prevent any future attempt by any upcoming South African administration to empower the country, the apartheid regime enacted the most self-restricting legislation in the form of the “Act on the Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction” that makes provision for a South African Council for Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction to control exports of dual-use materials, equipment and technology.

    While South African apartheid leaders’ actions were met with praise by the western medias and leaders, many saw this speedy destruction of all the country main military infrastructures as a sign that the racist apartheid regime and many western countries didn’t want the upcoming Black leaders to inherit such a powerful arsenal.

    “The whole thing was dressed up as an honourable retreat from a nuclear Africa” said Frans Cronje, deputy CEO of the South African Institute of Race Relations, a Johannesburg-based think tank.

    “A nuclear African state would be taken more seriously and would have a stronger leadership role – it forces people to take you seriously.

    In leadership terms, renouncing nuclear weapons does the opposite – it reduces your influence in foreign affairs and international politics.

    If renouncing nuclear weapons grows your influence, others would be falling over themselves to surrender their nuclear arsenals.”

    While a racist, violent, and brutal oppression white apartheid regime was trusted to have and manage nuclear weapons, a Black and democratically elected regime was not trusted to manage them.

    That historic decision was all about racism. Nothing else.

    South Africa would today be stronger on the international stage if it had retained a nuclear arsenal."

    ============

    Wow.



  2. Link to Post #2
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,448
    Thanks
    53,050
    Thanked 19,089 times in 2,402 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Sadly, that is all too believable.

  3. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Basho (4th May 2017), BMJ (4th May 2017), Bob (4th May 2017), Bruno (4th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (4th May 2017), justntime2learn (7th May 2017), TargeT (4th May 2017)

  4. Link to Post #3
    Avalon Member Carmody's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th August 2010
    Location
    Winning The Galactic Lottery
    Posts
    11,389
    Thanks
    17,597
    Thanked 82,321 times in 10,234 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    The story that seems to be around (for a long time now), if one looks..is that South Africa's weapons program was not entirely their own. If so, dismantling it may have been out of their hands, as in the initial building of it may have been out of their hands.

    Ie, that South Africa was a proxy site for weapons development, a pairing of skills and location, to the advantage of two parties, not one.

    In such a scenario, dismantling it would be a definite thing and a priority.. as the weapons program may not have truly belonged to South Africa.

    If one looks around in the net, they will find reams of data that indicates that this was the more correct assessment of the situation. Not specifically correct in name or details (in my phrasing), but that it was a co-development, with someone else being the true 'owner' of the program.

    Thus: Change in government in SA = everything must leave, with not a trace remaining.

    As circumstantial evidence goes, the fact that the removal was so clean, clear, orderly and perfected....and the data on the net about it being a shared program...makes it hard to think it could be much else. The whole racism thing may be entirely secondary in importance, and make a good cover story.
    Last edited by Carmody; 4th May 2017 at 14:58.
    Interdimensional Civil Servant

  5. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Carmody For This Post:

    Ba-ba-Ra (4th May 2017), Baby Steps (4th May 2017), Basho (4th May 2017), BMJ (4th May 2017), Bob (4th May 2017), Eram (4th May 2017), Ewan (4th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (4th May 2017), sdv (4th May 2017), TargeT (4th May 2017), wnlight (5th May 2017)

  6. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    9,117
    Thanks
    10,031
    Thanked 56,787 times in 8,388 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    I think it was Joseph Farrell who said that Germany used South Africa as a partner in developing military capabilities they were banned from doing on their own soil.
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Basho (4th May 2017), Bob (4th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (4th May 2017), TargeT (4th May 2017)

  8. Link to Post #5
    South Africa Avalon Member JohanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2017
    Language
    Afrikaans
    Posts
    167
    Thanks
    833
    Thanked 1,066 times in 166 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Eish guys - 24 years later - as a "proud" citizen, with our economy just downgraded to "junk status" - "eish"

    It was "controlled destruction" - more than one nation was involved - as an engineer my whole life and destiny changed (perhaps for the better, really)

    Life is good, almost always !

  9. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to JohanB For This Post:

    Basho (4th May 2017), BMJ (4th May 2017), Bob (4th May 2017), Ewan (5th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (4th May 2017), TargeT (4th May 2017)

  10. Link to Post #6
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    72
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Conspiracy theory abounds with the background of South Africa's weapons of mass destruction development. Nukes have been called the "hot" weapons used to trigger the emotional response of the Japan bombing by the US in the 1940's (Hiroshima and Nagasaki).. Ingrained to completely akin to the nuclear flash into people's minds that trigger to evoke emotion exists, to the point of "world destroying visions" of the planet becoming un-inhabitable by even a limited tactical use of nuclear weapons..

    SO countries then go the other route and develop chemical and biological weapons, the insidious microscopic invaders of one's body, one's food, one's water and air..

    The players use a different scenario, instead of the emotional "hot shock" flash of nukes, to the malignant tissue eroding plagues, to create control and complacency with the world-chess playing rulers...

    In the case of South Africa, some data includes that it built six nuclear warheads before renouncing its weapons program in 1991.

    South Africa also developed a chemical and biological weapons program in the 1980s under the name Project Coast.

    South Africa also jointly developed medium-range ballistic missiles with Israel in the 1980s.

    Were the hidden players supplying technology to South Africa, such as biological, chemical, nuclear, missile, advanced electronic design technology, countries such as Germany, Israel, and Switzerland?

    Quote Switzerland played a key role in developing South Africa's nuclear weapons programme during apartheid, an investigation has revealed.

    Peter Hug, a historian whose inquiry was sponsored by the Swiss authorities, said his country "was a pillar of support for the apartheid government".

    According to his report, which also found evidence of Germany's role in bolstering the white regime, the Swiss government was aware of illegal deals but "tolerated them in silence, supported some of them actively or criticised them only half-heartedly".

    The most alarming aspect of the co-operation was the involvement in South Africa's secret atomic weapons programme, said Mr Hug.

    Between the 1970s and 1993 Pretoria built six nuclear weapons and partially assembled a seventh.

    The Swiss firms Gebruder Sulzer AG and VAT Buchs supplied vital components.

    "The fissionable material needed for this originated from the uranium enrichment that South Africa had built up with technical support from Switzerland, Germany and other countries. In the 1980s, South Africa constructed six gun-type nuclear weapons and had started building a seventh. (Gun type nuclear weapons are a simple design).

    "Swiss industry got around the arms embargo that the UN had imposed on South Africa in grand style," said Mr Hug, a historian at the University of Bern.

    His report cited a deal worth at least 100 million Swiss francs (Ł44 million) which was brokered in 1977 and involved the supply of "highly sensitive technology".

    Mr Hug said that the Swiss industry violated the UN arms embargo and even flouted rules on arms exports defined by Switzerland.

    In the mid-1980s most western countries, including the United States, imposed sweeping embargoes to try to bring an end to the policies of white domination.

    But Switzerland refused to join the ban, arguing that it was incompatible with its neutrality and would have few practical results other than worsening the population's plight.

    ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-the-bomb.html
    The insidious weapons


    "In 1998 South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission held hearings investigating activities of the apartheid-era government.

    Toward the end of the hearings, the Commission looked into the apartheid regime's Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) program and allegations that it developed a sterility vaccine to use on black South Africans, employed toxic and chemical poison weapons for political asssassination, and in the late 1970s provided anthrax and cholera to Rhodesian troops for use against guerrilla rebels in their war to overthrow Rhodesia's white minority rule.

    South Africa's CBW program was headed by Dr. Wouter Basson, a former Special Forces Army Brigadier and personal heart specialist to former President P.W. Botha. Basson ran the CBW program during the 1980s and early 1990s.

    CBW, also known as Project Coast, was initiated in the early 1980s to provide detection and protection capabilities to the South African Defence Force.

    However, there was an offensive component to the program and the claims are that CBW's offensive program:


    1) Developed lethal chemical and biological weapons that targeted ANC political leaders and their supporters as well as populations living in the black townships. These weapons included an infertility toxin to secretly sterilize the black population; skin-absorbing poisons that could be applied to the clothing of targets; and poison concealed in products such as chocolates and cigarettes.

    Data for such exists within the interviews with former President F.W. de Klerk, and Dr. Daan Goosen, who worked with Basson in the CBW program.

    Released cholera strains into water sources of certain South African villages and provided anthrax and cholera to the government troops of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) during the late 1970s to use against the rebel soldiers in the guerrilla war. In 1979 the world's largest outbreak of anthrax took place in Rhodesia where 82 people were killed and thousands became ill.

    Zimbabwe's current Minister of Health, Dr. Timothy Stamps, has ordered an investigation into whether South Africa was involved in the incident.

    South Africa's CBW program underwent drastic changes after F.W. de Klerk became president in the early 1990s. De Klerk appointed General Pierre Steyn to investigate the CBW program and his report, known as the Steyn Report, exposed some of the alleged abuses of the program.

    De Klerk ordered the firing of numerous CBW scientists and officials and the destruction of all documents pertaining to CBW technology.

    All of the information was transferred to CD-ROMs to be kept under lock and key by the president. However, the official position of the South African government throughout the 1990s was that the program had been a strictly defensive one.

    Basson was pressured to retire and became a consultant who travelled frequently, including trips to Libya which drew attention.

    Twice during de Klerk's presidency and once during Mandela's, the United States and Britain made démarches to express their concerns about the leaking of knowledge from the CBW program. The South African government re-hired Basson in 1995 in an effort to keep him close and under control. References exist within the the interview with Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa's current Deputy Defense Minister."

    Why have NUKES when the whole range of chemical and biologicals have been developed, apparently deployed, tested and ready to use where-ever, when-ever and on whom-ever? (sigh)..

    additional references:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ows/plague/sa/
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-the-bomb.html
    http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/s...frica/nuclear/

  11. Link to Post #7
    Germany Avalon Member
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    SW Germany
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,764
    Thanks
    2,372
    Thanked 9,190 times in 1,661 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    anyone (Germany?) who invested so much time and money in nuclear weapons in ZA would not just suddenly scrap them; this report makes no logical sense to me-

    also, if Joseph Farrell is correct ZA never signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty;

    be well all-

    Larry

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cardillac For This Post:

    Bob (4th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (4th May 2017), sdv (4th May 2017)

  13. Link to Post #8
    South Africa Avalon Member
    Join Date
    11th January 2016
    Age
    52
    Posts
    58
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 209 times in 54 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    The nuclear weapon disarmament was probably to get some support from influential countries in negotiating the transition to an open democracy...and to protect some of our overseas partners, most probably Israel the most prominent. If the motive was racist, the SA government would have used the chemical and biological weapons prior to negotiations, or things would have continued as they were. It was a voluntary regime change.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DbDraad For This Post:

    BMJ (4th May 2017), Bob (4th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (4th May 2017), TargeT (4th May 2017)

  15. Link to Post #9
    United States Avalon Member conk's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2010
    Location
    Alabama
    Language
    Southern English
    Posts
    3,937
    Thanks
    11,067
    Thanked 11,146 times in 2,998 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    ... the Commission looked into the apartheid regime's Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) program and allegations that it developed a sterility vaccine to use on black South Africans,....
    Reading about vaccines and came across a story about poor African women, upon seeing white men in lab coats entering the village with medical supplies, ran screaming "here come the baby killers". These poor, ignorant women knew they weren't getting a shot to prevent some ailment. They knew they were being sterilized.

    On topic: Why any country continues to hold nuclear weapons, knowing the devastating effects on the Earth and it's people, is incomprehensible.
    The quantum field responds not to what we want; but to who we are being. Dr. Joe Dispenza

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to conk For This Post:

    Basho (4th May 2017), Bob (4th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (4th May 2017), TargeT (4th May 2017)

  17. Link to Post #10
    Avalon Member sdv's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th March 2012
    Location
    On a farm in the Klein Karoo
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    3,959
    Thanked 3,549 times in 833 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Bob, as a South African, I have always believed that not wanting an African country to have nuclear weapons was the reason, not so much of the De Klerk government, but for pressure from the West. South Africa was deeply in debt and rated junk status for investment (Zuma has just taken us back to junk and fast-growing debt, along with a stalled economy and too many youngsters with no hope of getting a job so it is somewhat like the bad old days here!). Sanctions were punitive as well. South Africa needed big donations and big loans at a favourable interest rate from the West. It was not in a strong position to be belligerent and say no (I doubt that South Africa decided all on its own to voluntary dismantle the weapons - the only country that has ever done so - and that De Klerk did it for racist reasons because he is a very committed South African and he still believes in the democratic project and supports it through his Foundation).

    As for the West, were they genuinely concerned that South Africa would follow the path of many African countries and end up with a dictatorship, perhaps a loony who stays in power until his dying breath and then a son takes over, perhaps endless civil wars, and so on, and nuclear weapons would make a rogue South Africa a threat to stability and peace in the region? Or did they just want to shut down anyone outside the club from having the power of nuclear weapons (if South Africa has them, maybe other African countries will get them and it is such a big continent with such a huge amount of people - that would be a THREAT to the West!)?

    I'm not sure that the West was ever happy with South Africa having nuclear weapons. It was a secret programme so South Africa did not admit to having them until 1991 I think. Apartheid South Africa was seen by many as a rogue nation and the presidents preceding De Klerk were pretty loopy with Botha in particular being crazily belligerent. How do you demand that a country such as that dismantles the weapons that it denies it has? Did the West really want to risk war against South Africa over 6 smallish nuclear warheads?

    I don't think it was racism, but that is my opinion.

    PS The nuclear weapons were a secret but most South Africans kind of knew we had them (there is always a guy who talks to someone, who talks to someone else ...!).
    Last edited by sdv; 4th May 2017 at 18:56.
    Sandie
    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. (Carl Sagan)

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sdv For This Post:

    Bob (4th May 2017), conk (5th May 2017), Ewan (5th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (4th May 2017)

  19. Link to Post #11
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    72
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    What was one of the major nuclear and wmd networks associated with South Africa?

    The A.Q. Khan Network in South Africa and Nuclear Supply Networks

    The September 2004 discovery of a South African connection to A.Q. Khan’s nuclear proliferation network led to the arrests of four business and engineering figures, including some who had been involved in the former apartheid regime’s nuclear weapons program of the 1970s and 1980s.

    South African police arrested Johan Meyer of Tradefin Engineering on suspicion of manufacturing centrifuge parts and equipment for Libya.

    Tradefin produced the elaborate equipment needed to insert and withdraw the uranium hexafluoride gas that is enriched in centrifuges.

    Tradefin also attempted unsuccessfully to make the sensitive maraging steel rotors for the P2 centrifuges.

    Meyer admitted to prosecutors that he knew that the items were for a uranium-enrichment plant.

    Based on his testimony, other individuals were arrested, including Gerhard Wisser, a German citizen and owner of Krisch Engineering in South Africa, who had a long history of involvement with other members of the network.

    Wisser had been arrested a month earlier in Germany for his alleged role in producing centrifuge parts in South Africa for delivery to Libya and was out on bail in South Africa.

    Daniel Jacobus Van Beek, director of South Africa's counter-proliferation office, participated in the raid and called the scheme “one of the most serious and extensive attempts” to breach international nuclear controls.

    The activities took place in spite of the fact that South Africa has one of the world's strictest anti-proliferation laws, with severe sentences and financial penalties for violators.

    Van Beek estimated that the 200 tons of equipment was worth about $33 million.

    In November 2004, the Swiss government arrested Gotthard Lerch, a German citizen, who had been employed by Leybold Heraeus, a German company that developed and produced vacuum products and technology. Before undergoing internal reform in the early 1990s, Leybold Heraeus and its sister companies had been major suppliers to many secret nuclear weapons programs, including the one in South Africa as well as in Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan.

    A Malaysian police report mentioned that Lerch was allegedly involved in trying to obtain centrifuge parts for Libya from South Africa.

    Germany asked Switzerland to arrest Lerch so that he would not be free when Wisser was released on bail by South African authorities.

    The A.Q. Khan arrests underscored the fact that South Africa still has a domestic nuclear energy program and the kind of sophisticated manufacturing machinery, expertise, and industrial infrastructure sought by states and organizations seeking to build nuclear weapons.

    The Khan case shattered the complacency in South Africa and elsewhere about how effective national and international export controls have been in stopping illegal nuclear or nuclear-related materials.

    South Africa is a Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) member, but investigations have shown that the government did not adequately implement its national export control and nuclear nonproliferation laws, despite its commitments as a NSG member.

    South Africa’s NSG membership enabled companies assisting the Khan network to receive items from other NSG members essentially without checks on their potential end use.

    The failure of this NSG country to stop the illicit manufacture of centrifuge components is one of the most embarrassing aspects of this scandal.

    Thus, South Africa remains a major source of concern in terms of nuclear supply networks and indications and warning of nuclear terrorism.

    reference: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us

  20. Link to Post #12
    Avalon Member sdv's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th March 2012
    Location
    On a farm in the Klein Karoo
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    3,959
    Thanked 3,549 times in 833 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    I think it was Joseph Farrell who said that Germany used South Africa as a partner in developing military capabilities they were banned from doing on their own soil.
    Perhaps the German and Swiss link was because of the trial of Wisser and Geiges in South Africa. I think it is a stretch to say that they represented the German and Swiss governments.

    Quote The secrecy that surrounded South Africa’s apartheid nuclear weapons programme threatens to envelop the trial in Pretoria of a German and a Swiss engineer accused of using their know-how from the apartheid era to further Libya’s atomic ambitions.

    Gerhard Wisser (67), the German owner of Johannesburg-based Krisch Engineering, and Daniel Geiges (69), a Swiss former Krisch employee, are accused of attempting to smuggle nuclear equipment to Libya for its nuclear weapons programme that ended in 2003, a few months before they were arrested in Johannesburg.

    The case has sparked media controversy in South Africa because prosecutors in the case have applied for a largely secret trial and a media ban on the proceedings.

    This secrecy raises questions over how South Africa is confronting its own nuclear activities during the apartheid era that ended in 1990, critics say. The media ban was due to be decided on Wednesday.

    “The move is portrayed as vital to prevent the dissemination of information that would allow rogue states to develop nuclear weapons, but the blackout seems as much designed to protect the dirty secrets of South Africa’s nuclear past as to stop future proliferation,” the Mail & Guardian reported last week.

    Parts supplied

    Wisser has admitted that Krisch Engineering, the company he set up after his arrival in Johannesburg in 1966, supplied parts to South Africa’s state Uranium Enrichment Corporation (Ucor) during the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of them imported from a German company, Leybold Heraeus.

    Parts of the uranium enriched by Ucor at its secret Pelindaba facility (Zulu for “no more talking”) were used by the apartheid state at its commercial Koeberg nuclear power plant, and the rest in the manufacture of six-and-a-half nuclear weapons, which were ultimately dismantled in the early 1990s.

    While admitting his role in South Africa’s secret nuclear activities, Wisser insists that he did not know he was brokering a deal to supply components for Libya’s nuclear programme when he was asked by a German contact to find a South African manufacturer for a “compact pipework system”.

    The pipework system was eventually produced by South African company Tradefin, according to plans provided by a close aide to Pakistan-based Abdul Qadeer Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistani atomic bomb currently under house arrest himself for avowedly selling nuclear secrets.

    The name Khan did not trigger any alarm bells with him, Wisser said, adding he believed until mid-2003 that the equipment was planned for commercial use. He also claims that it would not have worked, as key parts were never delivered.

    South African prosecutors, however, argue that the equipment was related to the production of highly enriched uranium and its conversion to uranium metal for the production of nuclear weapons in Libya, the M&G reported.
    The closed trial was challenged in South Africa (successfully). Both men were found to be guilty.

    Quote A second member of an international nuclear smuggling ring, Swiss engineer Daniel Geiges, was given a suspended sentence by a Pretoria High Court judge on Tuesday.

    Judge Willie van der Merwe sentenced the 69-year-old Geiges, who is gravely ill with cancer, to a total of 13 years’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence for five years in terms of a plea-bargain agreement between Geiges and the state.

    Geiges also agreed to the confiscation of €50 000 and 74 255 Swiss Francs in cash that is currently frozen by Swiss authorities.

    He further agreed to provide the police with statements detailing the full extent of his knowledge of all matters relevant to nuclear proliferation.

    He agreed to testify in other proceedings and to cooperate with South African and international nuclear authorities.

    Geiges admitted guilt to five charges of contravening the Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction Act and the Nuclear Energy Act.

    He admitted he had in the late 1990s and early 2000s been involved in the clandestine illegal import, export and manufacture of components relating to nuclear equipment and material.

    He also admitted to an attempt to export nuclear-related equipment.

    Geiges’s former boss and co-accused, German engineer Gerhard Wisser (68), was earlier sentenced to three years’ correctional supervision and given the equivalent of a R6-million fine in terms of a plea-bargain agreement with the state.—Sapa
    Last edited by sdv; 4th May 2017 at 19:40.
    Sandie
    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. (Carl Sagan)

  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sdv For This Post:

    Bob (4th May 2017), Ewan (5th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (4th May 2017), norman (4th May 2017)

  22. Link to Post #13
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    72
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Then, was the apparent dismantlement of the South African nuclear program in 1991 really a sham for developing an insidious relationship with both States and non-state players to obtain WMD's (weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear biological and chemical categories).. ?

    Quote South Africa is a Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) member, but investigations have shown that the government did not adequately implement its national export control and nuclear nonproliferation laws, despite its commitments as a NSG member.

    South Africa’s NSG membership enabled companies assisting the Khan network to receive items from other NSG members essentially without checks on their potential end use.

    The failure of this NSG country to stop the illicit manufacture of centrifuge components is one of the most embarrassing aspects of this scandal.

    Thus, South Africa remains a major source of concern in terms of nuclear supply networks and indications and warning of nuclear terrorism.
    The Current Participating Governments (PGs) are:
    • ARGENTINA,
    • AUSTRALIA,
    • AUSTRIA,
    • BELARUS,
    • BELGIUM,
    • BRAZIL,
    • BULGARIA,
    • CANADA,
    • CHINA,
    • CROATIA,
    • CYPRUS,
    • CZECH REPUBLIC,
    • DENMARK,
    • ESTONIA,
    • FINLAND,
    • FRANCE,
    • GERMANY,
    • GREECE,
    • HUNGARY,
    • ICELAND,
    • IRELAND,
    • ITALY,
    • JAPAN,
    • KAZAKHSTAN,
    • REPUBLIC OF KOREA,
    • LATVIA,
    • LITHUANIA,
    • LUXEMBOURG,
    • MALTA,
    • MEXICO,
    • NETHERLANDS,
    • NEW ZEALAND,
    • NORWAY,
    • POLAND,
    • PORTUGAL,
    • ROMANIA,
    • RUSSIAN FEDERATION,
    • SERBIA,
    • SLOVAKIA,
    • SLOVENIA,
    • SOUTH AFRICA,
    • SPAIN,
    • SWEDEN,
    • SWITZERLAND,
    • TURKEY,
    • UKRAINE,
    • UNITED KINGDOM, and
    • UNITED STATES

    ON WHAT BASIS ARE PARTICIPATION DECISIONS TAKEN?

    According to the bylaws and considerations for membership, these Factors (below) are taken into account for participation include the following:
    • The ability to supply items (including items in transit) covered by the Annexes to Parts 1 and 2 of the NSG Guidelines;
    • Adherence to the Guidelines and action in accordance with them;
    • Enforcement of a legally based domestic export control system which gives effect to the commitment to act in accordance with the Guidelines;
    • Adherence to one or more of the NPT, the Treaties of Pelindaba, Rarotonga, Tlatelolco, Bangkok , Semipalatinsk or an equivalent international nuclear non-proliferation agreement, and full compliance with the obligations of such agreement(s);
    • Support of international efforts towards non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of their delivery vehicles.

    references:
    See GUIDELINES - http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/en/guidelines
    See HISTORY - http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/en/history1

    Quote 1974 - The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) was created following the explosion in 1974 of a nuclear device by a non-nuclear-weapon State, which demonstrated that nuclear technology transferred for peaceful purposes could be misused.

  23. Link to Post #14
    Avalon Member sdv's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th March 2012
    Location
    On a farm in the Klein Karoo
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    3,959
    Thanked 3,549 times in 833 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Quote Posted by Cardillac (here)
    anyone (Germany?) who invested so much time and money in nuclear weapons in ZA would not just suddenly scrap them; this report makes no logical sense to me-

    also, if Joseph Farrell is correct ZA never signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty;

    be well all-
    Larry
    Jospeh Farrell is seeing a link that is not there. Germany was involved in making the bombs in that some parts were imported from Germany through a private engineering firm in South Africa (owned by a German who had lived in South Africa for many years and who employed a Swiss in his firm) who then supplied the South African government. South Africa had not yet signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (it would do so in 1991, 2 years after it stopped work on its nuclear weapons programme).
    Sandie
    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. (Carl Sagan)

  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sdv For This Post:

    BMJ (4th May 2017), Bob (4th May 2017), Ewan (6th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (6th May 2017), TargeT (4th May 2017)

  25. Link to Post #15
    United States Avalon Member Foxie Loxie's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th September 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Age
    79
    Posts
    3,078
    Thanks
    67,683
    Thanked 17,639 times in 2,960 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    I'm learning a lot!

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Foxie Loxie For This Post:

    BMJ (4th May 2017), Bob (4th May 2017)

  27. Link to Post #16
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd June 2013
    Location
    North America
    Age
    72
    Posts
    6,884
    Thanks
    12,723
    Thanked 29,293 times in 6,140 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    How does Israel fit in with South Africa? Below is one article that implies that Israel obtained nuclear material from South Africa to help establish it's nuclear program..

    Excerpts from the article, it is long, and cited below without using "quotes" for ease of reading, written by Glenn Frankel, who teaches journalism at Stanford University, was Southern Africa, Jerusalem, and London bureau chief for the Washington Post and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting.

    The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa by Sasha Polakow-Suransky

    =====================================

    As bureau chief for the Washington Post in Southern Africa and Jerusalem in the 1980s, I squandered a lot of hours trying to pierce the iron curtain that the two countries carefully drew around their strategic partnership. I reported the various estimates that the arms trade between the two amounted to anywhere from $125 million to $400 million annually — far beyond the $100 million that the International Monetary Fund reported as total imports and exports in the mid 1980s.

    Soon after arriving in Jerusalem in 1986, I asked Ezer Weizman, a former Israeli defense minister and champion of the secret partnership, about the uncanny resemblance between Israel’s Kfir fighter jet — itself patterned on the French Mirage — and South Africa’s newly minted Cheetah. He just smiled at me and replied, "I’ve noticed that as well."

    Now comes Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who is an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine, a Rhodes scholar, and an American Jew whose parents emigrated to the United States from South Africa.

    His singular achievement in his new book, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa scheduled for publication on May 25, is to have unearthed more than 7,000 pages of heretofore secret documents from the bowels of South Africa’s Defense Ministry, Foreign Ministry, and Armscor, the state defense contractor, including the secret 1975 military cooperation agreement signed by defense ministers Shimon Peres and P.W. Botha.

    The Israeli government sought to block release of the pact to the author, but the post-apartheid South African government ignored its protests.

    The black-majority government, led by the African National Congress, "is far less concerned with keeping old secrets than with protecting its own accumulated dirty laundry after 15 years in power," Polakow-Suransky notes. Beyond locating the secret papers, he also interviewed South Africans and Israelis who played key roles in forging and promoting the partnership. The result is the best-documented, most thorough, and most credible account ever offered of the secret marriage between the apartheid state and Israel.

    (By way of disclosure, let me add that Polakow-Suransky thanks me in his acknowledgements, although he needn’t have; I only bought him a cup of coffee and passed on a handful of names and numbers when he approached me about this project some five years ago.)

    Polakow-Suransky puts Israel’s annual military exports to South Africa between 1974 and 1993 at $600 million, which made South Africa Israel’s second or third largest trading partner after the United States and Britain. Military aircraft updates in the mid-1980s alone accounted for some $2 billion, according to correspondence he obtained. He puts the total military trade between the countries at well above $10 billion over the two decades.

    Israel reaped big profits, but paid a price in moral standing.

    By focusing solely on its purported strategic value to the United States, Israel and its supporters have tended to downgrade the country’s real case for preserving a special relationship with its staunch ally.

    Foreign-policy realists argue that the price Washington pays in the Muslim world for its support of Israel far outweighs whatever strategic value the Jewish state provides.

    The more compelling case has always focused on Israel’s character as a robust democracy that shares American values. But the clandestine alliance with South Africa undermined Israel’s rightful claim on U.S. admiration and support. After all, if Israel is just another standard-issue country that conducts business with pariah states and lies about it, why should America be concerned about its fate?

    David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father, understood this, routinely condemned apartheid and sought to ally his country with the new black-governed nations of sub-Saharan Africa that emerged from colonial rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s. But the balance of forces began to change dramatically after the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel seized control of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.

    Ben-Gurion’s heirs — Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Moshe Dayan, second-generation leaders of the ruling Labor Party — worked to transform Israel into a mini super power and had no qualms about cooperating with South Africa to get there. "It was not a shotgun marriage," writes Polakow-Suransky.

    The 1973 Yom Kippur War put the seal on the shift. Egypt succeeded in framing the war as a Zionist invasion of the African continent, and more than 20 African states severed diplomatic ties with Israel.

    South Africa, by contrast, furnished Israel with spare parts for its Mirage jet fighters, and South Africa’s substantial Jewish community, encouraged by its government, poured money and support into the Zionist state. The two countries were on their way to becoming, in Polakow-Suranskys words, "brothers in arms."

    The relationship started as a marriage of self-interest. South African money helped Israel became a major arms manufacturer and exporter and funded its high-tech economy, while Pretoria gained access to cutting-edge weapons and military technology at a time when most of the world sought to isolate and condemn the apartheid regime.

    For the ensuing two decades Israel continued to publicly denounce apartheid while at the same time secretly propping up the white-minority government and helping sustain racial supremacy.

    Peres had been Ben-Gurion’s gifted protégé and a key architect in building Israel’s defense establishment and its nuclear capability during his years as director general of the Defense Ministry.

    When he became defense minister after the Yom Kippur War, he sought to grow the military-industrial complex in part with millions from the arms export market, which Polakow-Suransky reports increased 15-fold between 1973 and 1981.

    Early on his new role, Peres secretly visited Pretoria. In a memo afterward, he told his South African hosts that their mutual cooperation was based not only on common interest, "but also on the unshakeable foundations of our common hatred of injustice and our refusal to submit to it."

    That same year the two governments began holding biannual gatherings for Defense Ministry officials and arms industry exporters and an annual strategic cooperation conference between intelligence officials.

    After Peres and Botha signed their secret security pact in April 1975, Israel sold tanks, fighter aircraft, and long-range missiles to Pretoria and offered to sell nuclear warheads as well.

    Israel also began to act as middleman, buying arms from countries that refused ostensibly to do business with Pretoria and passing them on to the regime.

    All of this continued even after the United Nations Security Council passed a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa in November 1977.

    Menachem Begin’s rightist Likud came to power that same year, and relations became even stronger.

    Along the way, Polakow-Suransky introduces the unsung actors who helped cement the relationship.

    One of the key figures was Yitzhak Unna, a skilled, pragmatic and two-fisted Israeli diplomat who became counsel general in Johannesburg in 1969 and was later promoted to ambassador.

    Unna learned to speak Afrikaans, befriended the former Nazi sympathizer who headed South Africa’s bureau of state security and launched a series of deals that brought the two countries closer together.

    Then there was Binyamin Telem, former commander of Israel’s navy, who handled defense contracts with Armscor.

    Both men saw themselves as anti-racists — Telem insisted that the Israeli embassy pay its black employees at the same rate as whites — but both deepened the ties and approved contracts in the millions. Included were training and weapons systems that helped the South African military suppress internal revolts against apartheid.

    Israeli security companies and former military men also trained and equipped the repressive police forces of the sham puppet states known as Bantustans that South Africa sought to establish in the 1970s and 1980s.

    By 1979, Polakow-Suransky writes, South Africa was Israel’s single largest arms customer, accounting for 35 percent of its military exports.

    Uranium Sales to Israel

    South Africa supplied Israel a 500-ton stockpile of uranium for its nuclear program.

    In turn, Israel sold South Africa 30 grams of tritium, a radioactive substance that helped increase the explosive power of its thermonuclear weapons.

    The extent of Israeli-South African cooperation was symbolized in September 1979 by a double flash over the South Atlantic that analysts believed came from an Israeli nuclear bomb test, undertaken with South African cooperation. To this day the details remain classified.

    In the early days of the arms supply pact, Israel could argue that many Western countries, including the United States, had similar surreptitious relationships with the apartheid regime.

    But by 1980 Israel was the last major violator of the arms embargo.

    It stuck with South Africa throughout the 1980s when the regime clung to power in the face of international condemnation and intense rounds of political unrest in the black townships.

    By 1987 the apartheid regime was struggling to cope with the combination of internal unrest and international condemnation to the point where even Israel was forced to take notice.

    A key motivator was Section 508, an amendment to the anti-apartheid sanctions bill that passed the U.S. Congress in 1986 and survived President Ronald Reagan’s veto.

    It required the State Department to produce an annual report on countries violating the arms embargo. The first one, issued in April 1987, reported that Israel had violated the international ban on arm sales "on a regular basis."

    The report gave South Africa’s opponents within the Israeli government and their American Jewish allies ammunition to force Israel to adapt a mild set of sanctions against South Africa.

    I was in Jerusalem when Israel admitted publicly for the first time that it had significant military ties with South Africa and pledged not to enter into any new agreements — which meant, of course, that existing agreements would be maintained. It was, writes Polakow-Suransky, "little more than a cosmetic gesture."

    From the start, spokesmen for American Jewish organizations acted as apologists or dupes for Israel’s arms sales.

    Moshe Decter, a respected director of research for the American Jewish Committee, wrote in the New York Times in 1976 that Israel’s arms trade with South Africa was "dwarfed into insignificance" compared to that of other countries and said that to claim otherwise was "rank cynicism, rampant hypocrisy and anti-Semitic prejudice."

    In a March 1986 debate televised on PBS, Rabbi David Saperstein, a leader of the Reform Jewish movement and outspoken opponent of apartheid, claimed Israeli involvement with South Africa was negligible. He conceded that there may have been arms sales during the rightist Likud years in power from 1977 to 1984, but stated that under Shimon Peres, who served as prime minister between 1984 and 1986, "there have been no new arms sales." In fact, some of the biggest military contracts and cooperative ventures were signed during Peres’s watch.

    The Anti-Defamation League participated in a blatant propaganda campaign against Nelson Mandela and the ANC in the mid 1980s and employed an alleged "fact-finder" named Roy Bullock to spy on the anti-apartheid campaign in the United States — a service he was simultaneously performing for the South African government.

    The ADL defended the white regime’s purported constitutional reforms while denouncing the ANC as "totalitarian, anti-humane, anti-democratic, anti-Israel, and anti-American." (In fairness, the ADL later changed its tune. After his release in 1990, Mandela met in Geneva with a number of American Jewish leaders, including ADL president Abe Foxman, who emerged to call the ANC leader "a great hero of freedom.")

    Polakow-Suransky is no knee-jerk critic of Israel, and he tells his story more in sorrow than anger. He grants that the secret alliance had its uses. To the extent it enhanced Israel’s security and comfort zone, it may have helped pave the path to peace efforts.

    Elazar Granot, a certified dove who is a former left-wing Knesset member and ambassador to the new South Africa, says as much. "I had to take into consideration that maybe Rabin and Peres were able to go to the Oslo agreements because they believed that Israel was strong enough to defend itself," he tells the author. "Most of the work that was done — I’m talking about the new kinds of weapons — was done in South Africa."

    Polakow-Suransky sees in the excoriation of Jimmy Carter’s 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by American Jewish leaders an echo of their reflexive defense of Israel vis á vis South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s.

    The author himself draws uncomfortable parallels between apartheid and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, noting that both involved the creation of a system that stifled freedom of movement and labor, denied citizenship and produced homelessness, separation, and disenfranchisement.

    As the Palestinian population continues to grow and eventually becomes the majority — and Jews the minority — in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, the parallels with apartheid may become increasingly uncomfortable. Even Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed, observing in 2007 that if Israel failed to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians, it would inevitably "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights."

    "The apartheid analogy may be inexact today," Polakow-Suransky warns, "but it won’t be forever."

    I’ve always believed the apartheid analogy produces more heat than light. But it’s a comparison that Israel itself invited with its longstanding partnership with the white-minority regime.

    While Israel profited from the alliance, it paid a heavy price. Moral standing in the international community doesn’t come with an obvious price tag, nor does it command an influential lobby of corporate and military interests working tirelessly on its behalf. But it does have value and its absence has consequences.

    The anti-Israel divestment campaign that is slowly gathering steam in college campuses across the United States and Europe is one such potential consequence.

    This movement, backed both by genuine supporters of the Palestinians and by Arab governments whose motives are far more cynical, once again seeks to equate Zionism with racism and rob Israel of its hard-earned legitimacy by portraying it as, in Polakow-Suransky’s phrase, "a latter-day South Africa."

    ==============================

    and now we know a bit more of the story behind South Africa's wmd programs and the hidden networks and deals..

    reference: http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/05/24/...llicit-affair/

  28. Link to Post #17
    Germany Avalon Member
    Join Date
    31st May 2010
    Location
    SW Germany
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,764
    Thanks
    2,372
    Thanked 9,190 times in 1,661 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    @sdv

    "Jospeh Farrell is seeing a link that is not there. Germany was involved in making the bombs in that some parts were imported from Germany"-

    please explain: how can German bombs be imported FROM Germany... ???

    Larry- be well

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cardillac For This Post:

    Bob (5th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (6th May 2017)

  30. Link to Post #18
    Avalon Member sdv's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th March 2012
    Location
    On a farm in the Klein Karoo
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    3,959
    Thanked 3,549 times in 833 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Quote Posted by Cardillac (here)
    @sdv

    "Jospeh Farrell is seeing a link that is not there. Germany was involved in making the bombs in that some parts were imported from Germany"-

    please explain: how can German bombs be imported FROM Germany... ???

    Larry- be well
    I did not say that bombs were imported from Germany. Sorry you do not understand my language or thinking and am not sure how to explain it so that you do!

    Gerhard Wisser (a German who had lived in South Africa since the 1960s) had an engineering firm called Krisch Engineering (in South Africa).
    Krisch Engineering supplied parts to South Africa’s state Uranium Enrichment Corporation (Ucor) during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
    Ucor made the enriched uranium that was used in the nuclear weapons that South Africa developed.
    Krisch Engineering imported some of the parts it supplied to Ucor from a German company, Leybold Heraeus.

    That is the German link in the SA nuclear weapons programme.
    Sandie
    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. (Carl Sagan)

  31. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sdv For This Post:

    Bob (5th May 2017), Ewan (6th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (6th May 2017), TargeT (5th May 2017)

  32. Link to Post #19
    Avalon Member sdv's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th March 2012
    Location
    On a farm in the Klein Karoo
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    3,959
    Thanked 3,549 times in 833 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Quote Posted by Bob (here)
    How does Israel fit in with South Africa? Below is one article that implies that Israel obtained nuclear material from South Africa to help establish it's nuclear program..

    Excerpts from the article, it is long, and cited below without using "quotes" for ease of reading, written by Glenn Frankel, who teaches journalism at Stanford University, was Southern Africa, Jerusalem, and London bureau chief for the Washington Post and winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting.

    The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa by Sasha Polakow-Suransky

    =====================================

    As bureau chief for the Washington Post in Southern Africa and Jerusalem in the 1980s, I squandered a lot of hours trying to pierce the iron curtain that the two countries carefully drew around their strategic partnership. I reported the various estimates that the arms trade between the two amounted to anywhere from $125 million to $400 million annually — far beyond the $100 million that the International Monetary Fund reported as total imports and exports in the mid 1980s.

    Soon after arriving in Jerusalem in 1986, I asked Ezer Weizman, a former Israeli defense minister and champion of the secret partnership, about the uncanny resemblance between Israel’s Kfir fighter jet — itself patterned on the French Mirage — and South Africa’s newly minted Cheetah. He just smiled at me and replied, "I’ve noticed that as well."

    Now comes Sasha Polakow-Suransky, who is an editor at Foreign Affairs magazine, a Rhodes scholar, and an American Jew whose parents emigrated to the United States from South Africa.

    His singular achievement in his new book, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa scheduled for publication on May 25, is to have unearthed more than 7,000 pages of heretofore secret documents from the bowels of South Africa’s Defense Ministry, Foreign Ministry, and Armscor, the state defense contractor, including the secret 1975 military cooperation agreement signed by defense ministers Shimon Peres and P.W. Botha.

    The Israeli government sought to block release of the pact to the author, but the post-apartheid South African government ignored its protests.

    The black-majority government, led by the African National Congress, "is far less concerned with keeping old secrets than with protecting its own accumulated dirty laundry after 15 years in power," Polakow-Suransky notes. Beyond locating the secret papers, he also interviewed South Africans and Israelis who played key roles in forging and promoting the partnership. The result is the best-documented, most thorough, and most credible account ever offered of the secret marriage between the apartheid state and Israel.

    (By way of disclosure, let me add that Polakow-Suransky thanks me in his acknowledgements, although he needn’t have; I only bought him a cup of coffee and passed on a handful of names and numbers when he approached me about this project some five years ago.)

    Polakow-Suransky puts Israel’s annual military exports to South Africa between 1974 and 1993 at $600 million, which made South Africa Israel’s second or third largest trading partner after the United States and Britain. Military aircraft updates in the mid-1980s alone accounted for some $2 billion, according to correspondence he obtained. He puts the total military trade between the countries at well above $10 billion over the two decades.

    Israel reaped big profits, but paid a price in moral standing.

    By focusing solely on its purported strategic value to the United States, Israel and its supporters have tended to downgrade the country’s real case for preserving a special relationship with its staunch ally.

    Foreign-policy realists argue that the price Washington pays in the Muslim world for its support of Israel far outweighs whatever strategic value the Jewish state provides.

    The more compelling case has always focused on Israel’s character as a robust democracy that shares American values. But the clandestine alliance with South Africa undermined Israel’s rightful claim on U.S. admiration and support. After all, if Israel is just another standard-issue country that conducts business with pariah states and lies about it, why should America be concerned about its fate?

    David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father, understood this, routinely condemned apartheid and sought to ally his country with the new black-governed nations of sub-Saharan Africa that emerged from colonial rule in the late 1950s and early 1960s. But the balance of forces began to change dramatically after the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israel seized control of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.

    Ben-Gurion’s heirs — Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Moshe Dayan, second-generation leaders of the ruling Labor Party — worked to transform Israel into a mini super power and had no qualms about cooperating with South Africa to get there. "It was not a shotgun marriage," writes Polakow-Suransky.

    The 1973 Yom Kippur War put the seal on the shift. Egypt succeeded in framing the war as a Zionist invasion of the African continent, and more than 20 African states severed diplomatic ties with Israel.

    South Africa, by contrast, furnished Israel with spare parts for its Mirage jet fighters, and South Africa’s substantial Jewish community, encouraged by its government, poured money and support into the Zionist state. The two countries were on their way to becoming, in Polakow-Suranskys words, "brothers in arms."

    The relationship started as a marriage of self-interest. South African money helped Israel became a major arms manufacturer and exporter and funded its high-tech economy, while Pretoria gained access to cutting-edge weapons and military technology at a time when most of the world sought to isolate and condemn the apartheid regime.

    For the ensuing two decades Israel continued to publicly denounce apartheid while at the same time secretly propping up the white-minority government and helping sustain racial supremacy.

    Peres had been Ben-Gurion’s gifted protégé and a key architect in building Israel’s defense establishment and its nuclear capability during his years as director general of the Defense Ministry.

    When he became defense minister after the Yom Kippur War, he sought to grow the military-industrial complex in part with millions from the arms export market, which Polakow-Suransky reports increased 15-fold between 1973 and 1981.

    Early on his new role, Peres secretly visited Pretoria. In a memo afterward, he told his South African hosts that their mutual cooperation was based not only on common interest, "but also on the unshakeable foundations of our common hatred of injustice and our refusal to submit to it."

    That same year the two governments began holding biannual gatherings for Defense Ministry officials and arms industry exporters and an annual strategic cooperation conference between intelligence officials.

    After Peres and Botha signed their secret security pact in April 1975, Israel sold tanks, fighter aircraft, and long-range missiles to Pretoria and offered to sell nuclear warheads as well.

    Israel also began to act as middleman, buying arms from countries that refused ostensibly to do business with Pretoria and passing them on to the regime.

    All of this continued even after the United Nations Security Council passed a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa in November 1977.

    Menachem Begin’s rightist Likud came to power that same year, and relations became even stronger.

    Along the way, Polakow-Suransky introduces the unsung actors who helped cement the relationship.

    One of the key figures was Yitzhak Unna, a skilled, pragmatic and two-fisted Israeli diplomat who became counsel general in Johannesburg in 1969 and was later promoted to ambassador.

    Unna learned to speak Afrikaans, befriended the former Nazi sympathizer who headed South Africa’s bureau of state security and launched a series of deals that brought the two countries closer together.

    Then there was Binyamin Telem, former commander of Israel’s navy, who handled defense contracts with Armscor.

    Both men saw themselves as anti-racists — Telem insisted that the Israeli embassy pay its black employees at the same rate as whites — but both deepened the ties and approved contracts in the millions. Included were training and weapons systems that helped the South African military suppress internal revolts against apartheid.

    Israeli security companies and former military men also trained and equipped the repressive police forces of the sham puppet states known as Bantustans that South Africa sought to establish in the 1970s and 1980s.

    By 1979, Polakow-Suransky writes, South Africa was Israel’s single largest arms customer, accounting for 35 percent of its military exports.

    Uranium Sales to Israel

    South Africa supplied Israel a 500-ton stockpile of uranium for its nuclear program.

    In turn, Israel sold South Africa 30 grams of tritium, a radioactive substance that helped increase the explosive power of its thermonuclear weapons.

    The extent of Israeli-South African cooperation was symbolized in September 1979 by a double flash over the South Atlantic that analysts believed came from an Israeli nuclear bomb test, undertaken with South African cooperation. To this day the details remain classified.

    In the early days of the arms supply pact, Israel could argue that many Western countries, including the United States, had similar surreptitious relationships with the apartheid regime.

    But by 1980 Israel was the last major violator of the arms embargo.

    It stuck with South Africa throughout the 1980s when the regime clung to power in the face of international condemnation and intense rounds of political unrest in the black townships.

    By 1987 the apartheid regime was struggling to cope with the combination of internal unrest and international condemnation to the point where even Israel was forced to take notice.

    A key motivator was Section 508, an amendment to the anti-apartheid sanctions bill that passed the U.S. Congress in 1986 and survived President Ronald Reagan’s veto.

    It required the State Department to produce an annual report on countries violating the arms embargo. The first one, issued in April 1987, reported that Israel had violated the international ban on arm sales "on a regular basis."

    The report gave South Africa’s opponents within the Israeli government and their American Jewish allies ammunition to force Israel to adapt a mild set of sanctions against South Africa.

    I was in Jerusalem when Israel admitted publicly for the first time that it had significant military ties with South Africa and pledged not to enter into any new agreements — which meant, of course, that existing agreements would be maintained. It was, writes Polakow-Suransky, "little more than a cosmetic gesture."

    From the start, spokesmen for American Jewish organizations acted as apologists or dupes for Israel’s arms sales.

    Moshe Decter, a respected director of research for the American Jewish Committee, wrote in the New York Times in 1976 that Israel’s arms trade with South Africa was "dwarfed into insignificance" compared to that of other countries and said that to claim otherwise was "rank cynicism, rampant hypocrisy and anti-Semitic prejudice."

    In a March 1986 debate televised on PBS, Rabbi David Saperstein, a leader of the Reform Jewish movement and outspoken opponent of apartheid, claimed Israeli involvement with South Africa was negligible. He conceded that there may have been arms sales during the rightist Likud years in power from 1977 to 1984, but stated that under Shimon Peres, who served as prime minister between 1984 and 1986, "there have been no new arms sales." In fact, some of the biggest military contracts and cooperative ventures were signed during Peres’s watch.

    The Anti-Defamation League participated in a blatant propaganda campaign against Nelson Mandela and the ANC in the mid 1980s and employed an alleged "fact-finder" named Roy Bullock to spy on the anti-apartheid campaign in the United States — a service he was simultaneously performing for the South African government.

    The ADL defended the white regime’s purported constitutional reforms while denouncing the ANC as "totalitarian, anti-humane, anti-democratic, anti-Israel, and anti-American." (In fairness, the ADL later changed its tune. After his release in 1990, Mandela met in Geneva with a number of American Jewish leaders, including ADL president Abe Foxman, who emerged to call the ANC leader "a great hero of freedom.")

    Polakow-Suransky is no knee-jerk critic of Israel, and he tells his story more in sorrow than anger. He grants that the secret alliance had its uses. To the extent it enhanced Israel’s security and comfort zone, it may have helped pave the path to peace efforts.

    Elazar Granot, a certified dove who is a former left-wing Knesset member and ambassador to the new South Africa, says as much. "I had to take into consideration that maybe Rabin and Peres were able to go to the Oslo agreements because they believed that Israel was strong enough to defend itself," he tells the author. "Most of the work that was done — I’m talking about the new kinds of weapons — was done in South Africa."

    Polakow-Suransky sees in the excoriation of Jimmy Carter’s 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by American Jewish leaders an echo of their reflexive defense of Israel vis á vis South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s.

    The author himself draws uncomfortable parallels between apartheid and Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, noting that both involved the creation of a system that stifled freedom of movement and labor, denied citizenship and produced homelessness, separation, and disenfranchisement.

    As the Palestinian population continues to grow and eventually becomes the majority — and Jews the minority — in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, the parallels with apartheid may become increasingly uncomfortable. Even Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed, observing in 2007 that if Israel failed to negotiate a two-state solution with the Palestinians, it would inevitably "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights."

    "The apartheid analogy may be inexact today," Polakow-Suransky warns, "but it won’t be forever."

    I’ve always believed the apartheid analogy produces more heat than light. But it’s a comparison that Israel itself invited with its longstanding partnership with the white-minority regime.

    While Israel profited from the alliance, it paid a heavy price. Moral standing in the international community doesn’t come with an obvious price tag, nor does it command an influential lobby of corporate and military interests working tirelessly on its behalf. But it does have value and its absence has consequences.

    The anti-Israel divestment campaign that is slowly gathering steam in college campuses across the United States and Europe is one such potential consequence.

    This movement, backed both by genuine supporters of the Palestinians and by Arab governments whose motives are far more cynical, once again seeks to equate Zionism with racism and rob Israel of its hard-earned legitimacy by portraying it as, in Polakow-Suransky’s phrase, "a latter-day South Africa."

    ==============================

    and now we know a bit more of the story behind South Africa's wmd programs and the hidden networks and deals..

    reference: http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/05/24/...llicit-affair/
    Bob, denial from the old and new South African governments re. collaboration with Israel in developing nuclear weapons. Most South Africans believe that it is a lie and that there was very close collaboration. The truth is coming out now.
    Sandie
    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. (Carl Sagan)

  33. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sdv For This Post:

    Bob (5th May 2017), Ewan (6th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (6th May 2017)

  34. Link to Post #20
    Avalon Member sdv's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th March 2012
    Location
    On a farm in the Klein Karoo
    Posts
    956
    Thanks
    3,959
    Thanked 3,549 times in 833 posts

    Default Re: Why would South Africa destroy its nuclear program and weapons?

    Bob, the ANC continues the denial of the old government in South Africa re. Israeli collaboration. Most South Africans do not believe them! Would you?

    This excerpt from Wikipedia best sums up what is actually known about the Israeli connection ...

    Quote Alleged collaboration with Israel[edit]
    See also: Israel–South Africa Agreement
    David Albright and Chris McGreal have claimed that South African projects to develop nuclear weapons during the 1970s and 1980s were undertaken with some cooperation from Israel.[13][14][15] The United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 of 4 November 1977 introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, also requiring all states to refrain from "any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons".[16]

    According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, in 1977 Israel traded 30 grams of tritium for 50 tonnes of South African uranium[citation needed] and in the mid-1980s assisted with the development of the RSA-3 and RSA-4 ballistic missiles, which are similar to Israeli Shavit and Jericho missiles.[17] Also in 1977, according to foreign press reports, it was suspected that South Africa signed a pact with Israel that included the transfer of military technology and the manufacture of at least six nuclear bombs.[18]

    In September 1979, a US Vela satellite detected a double flash over the Indian Ocean that was suspected, but never confirmed, to be a nuclear test, despite extensive air sampling by WC-135 aircraft of the United States Air Force. If the Vela Incident was a nuclear test, South Africa is one of the countries, possibly in collaboration with Israel, that is suspected of carrying it out. No official confirmation of its being a nuclear test has been made by South Africa, and expert agencies[who?] have disagreed on their assessments. In 1997, South African Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad stated that South Africa had conducted a test, but later retracted his statement as being a report of rumours.[19]

    In February 1994, Commodore Dieter Gerhardt, former commander of South Africa's Simon's Town naval base who was later convicted of spying for the USSR, was reported to have said:

    Although I was not directly involved in planning or carrying out the operation, I learned unofficially that the flash was produced by an Israeli-South African test code-named Operation Phoenix. The explosion was clean and was not supposed to be detected. But they were not as smart as they thought, and the weather changed – so the Americans were able to pick it up.[20][21]

    In 2000, Gerhardt claimed that Israel agreed in 1974 to arm eight Jericho II missiles with "special warheads" for South Africa.[22]

    In 2010, The Guardian released South African government documents that it alleged confirmed the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal. According to The Guardian, the documents were associated with an Israeli offer to sell South Africa nuclear weapons in 1975.[23][24] Israel categorically denied these allegations and said that the documents do not indicate any offer for a sale of nuclear weapons. Israeli President Shimon Peres said that The Guardian article was based on "selective interpretation... and not on concrete facts."[25] Avner Cohen, author of Israel and the Bomb and the forthcoming The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb, said "Nothing in the documents suggests there was an actual offer by Israel to sell nuclear weapons to the regime in Pretoria."[26]
    Sandie
    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. (Carl Sagan)

  35. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sdv For This Post:

    Bob (5th May 2017), Foxie Loxie (6th May 2017)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts