A decade too late, the MoD has changed its mind over screening

[Guest guest]

http://www.independent.co.uk/argument/Leading_articles/2001-01/leadera100101

..shtml

A decade too late, the MoD has changed its mind over screening

10 January 2001

Better late than never, perhaps. But only just. Yesterday morning, the

Government was still insisting that there was no intention to test soldiers

who had served in the Balkans because of the possible dangers from depleted

uranium, despite the growing concern all across Europe. Ministry of Defence

spokesmen continued to declare that the situation was " the same as last week

and indeed last night " . By yesterday afternoon, however, the U-turn was

plain for all to see. Spellar, the armed forces minister, delivered a

sledgehammer speech in which he told parliament that there was no risk of

this, no link with that, no evidence of the other. But then came the

concession. The Government is ready to offer the screening which it has

until now categorically dismissed.

The first question must be: why only now? It first became clear in the

immediate aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991 that the use of depleted uranium

in ammunition had potentially catastrophic effects on people's health as a

result of the toxic dust released into the atmosphere. The ultra-density of

depleted uranium means it is especially prized by the military, because

DU-tipped missiles can pierce tank armour. But, as was clear from

Fisk's on-the-spot reports from southern Iraq published in The Independent

at that time, serious questions needed to be asked. Instead, successive

governments simply buried their heads in the sand. That failure to ask

serious questions is shameful.

Nato's refusal to give information about its use of DU ammunition in Kosovo

last year was eloquent in this regard. The use of depleted uranium was,

after all, not a military secret. It was merely politically embarrassing,

because of health concerns. Nato leaders can hardly now be surprised if the

previous refusal to answer simple questions about the use of DU has now led

to a deep and widespread scepticism. With all respect to Mr Spellar, his

assurances from the dispatch box about the safety of depleted uranium are in

danger of seeming as convincing as Selwyn Gummer's notorious photocall

with his young daughter and a hamburger, intended to prove that BSE was

absolutely No Risk At All.

Even now, there is no absolute proof of a connection between the use of DU

and the cluster of leukemia deaths among Italian soldiers and cancers and

other illnesses suffered by soldiers of different nationalities who spent

time in the Gulf and in the Balkans.

That, however, is beside the point. The reason that we have no proof is

because proper studies have not yet been carried out. To say " there is no

evidence " when nobody has gone looking for that evidence is both insulting

and absurd.

We welcome the fact that the UK is now finally ready to acknowledge the

extent of public concern. Even now, however, that response has been far too

grudging, as though loyalty to the US ally - which has been chief

cheerleader for depleted uranium from the start - counts for more than

finding out the truth. Offering tests to those who ask for them is far less

satisfactory than carrying out a survey which would be able to establish the

truth once and for all.

Even now, the Government seems determined not to confront the gravity of the

situation. Mr Spellar yesterday himself pointed to the reason for the

determination not to give up on depleted uranium - its " battle-winning

capability " . In other words, the generals are determined not to lose it.

That is all very well. But if the price for victorious battles is that

innocent people must die, then the price is far too high.