Scientists, Whistle-Blowers and the Vanunu Affair

What should scientists and technicians working in a military research establishment do if they come across classified information that they believe should be made public? If they decide to publish information concerning a clear threat to world security, how should the international scientific community respond? Should it assist whistle-blowers if they are put on trial for breaking the country's secrecy laws? The plight of Mordechai Vanunu dramatically raises all these questions. Vanunu, a 33-year old Israeli, is standing trial in the Jerusalem District Court for treason, aggravated espionage and the collection of secret information with intent to harm Israel's security. Vanunu, a technician at Israel's nuclear power plant at Dimona, gave the London-based Sunday Times newspaper top-secret information about Israel's production of materials for use in nuclear weapons. The Times published the information on Oct. 5, 1986. Using Vanunu's information one can calculate the possible size and quality of Israel's nuclear arsenal. Israel has probably produced enough weapon-grade plutonium for about 150 nuclear weapons, and enough tritium, deuterium and lithium-deuteride for many thermonuclear weapons. If Vanunu's figures are right, then this is much more nuclear material than previously thought. Vanunu said he violated Israel's secrecy laws only because he believes that both the Israeli and the world public have a right to know the information. Israeli political leaders, Vanunu says, have consistently lied about Israel's nuclear-weapons program. His defense is based on the danger that a Middle East war involving Israeli nuclear weapons might escalate to nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. That's not such a bizarre notion. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel is thought to have deployed nuclear weapons, and the Soviets to have sent nuclear weapons to Syria. It is known that the United States put its nuclear forces on alert and that the Soviets alerted their airborne forces. The world public, Vanunu says, should know that Israelis producing enough material for a much larger nuclear force than is necessary for a last-ditch deterrent to prevent the state's being overwhelmed by Arab military forces. Vanunu argues that such crucial questions should be publicly debated in a parliamentary democracy like Israel. This can only be done if Israelis know what is going on at Dimona. So far, crucial decisions on nuclear weapons in Israel have been made by a very small number of political leaders without even a full cabinet discussion. In the absence of any public debate, the authorities can do more or less as they please. As a consequence, Israel's nuclear-weapon developments are probably out of political control. It was obvious to me when I spoke with Vanunu in London in September 1986 that he would not have approached the Times had there been any alternative. There was no professional body that would have listened sympathetically to his arguments and considered publishing his information. Had such a body existed, his motives for divulging the information would have been less suspect and he might not now be facing possible life imprisonment. Given the potential application of some new technologies to weapons of mass destruction, and the wide availability of these technologies, shouldn't we learn from Vanunu's experience and set up a mechanism to make whistle-blowing a less hazard- ous business and, therefore, one that is easier to contemplate? I propose a permanent body with a full-time staff, headquartered in a neutral capital like Geneva, Stockholm or Vienna. It would be governed by an international board of scientists of such eminence and reputation that (like the judges of the World Court) their objectivity could not reasonably be questioned. The board would vet all applications for support and decide on what action to take. The first task of the body would be to get the full support of the world's scientific professional organizations. Through these organizations and their publications, scientists would learn about the existence and nature of the body. I have tried to raise support for Vanunu from scientists, but with no success. Vanunu has been supported by other organizations-he was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, the Danish Peace Foundation Prize, and so on-but not by scientists. Scientists in positions like Vanunu need a source of support and reassurance. The kind of body I propose would be just that. Barnaby, a nuclear physicist by training, is a former director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. His address is Brand Reth, Station Rd., Chilbolton, Stockbridge, S020 6A W UK

Scientists, Whistle-Blowers and the Vanunu Affair

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of