Results 1 to 6 of 6
Joint Statement of Communist and Workers’ parties of the Mediterranean against the de
Despite the intense and repeated denunciations, the plan to destroy chemical weapons from Syria in the maritime region between Italy and Crete is being advanced, with incalculable consequences for the environment and the peoples.
The KKE has denounced this in the national parliament and in the EU parliament. Mobilizations are being held in various Greek cities, mainly in Crete.
With this Joint Statement, which the KKE, CP Italy and CP of the Peoples of Spain jointly sign, we take a position against this development.
This Joint Statement is open to be signed by other Communist and Workers’ parties of the Mediterranean countries.
The Communist Parties against the destruction of chemical weapons in the Mediterranean
We, the communist and workers’ parties of the Mediterranean that sign this statement express our categorical opposition to the destruction of chemical weapons from Syria that will take place in the waters of the Mediterranean, despite the fact that the Mediterranean is an enclosed sea. This decision can lead to an enormous region being polluted by toxic chemical waste, with incalculable consequences for public health and with the destruction of a vast tract of the environment.
The USA and EU just as they fueled the continuing massacre of the people of Syria through their intervention are now endangering the health and lives of millions of people in the entire Mediterranean, especially in its coastal regions.
The plan appears to be promoted by enormous business interests, which are carrying out an experiment in the Mediterranean in order to find solutions for the increase of their profitability. Once again it is being demonstrated that the EU and the USA are the enemies of the peoples and serve the interests of the monopolies at the expense of the peoples’ lives.
We denounce the silence of the mass media on this issue and express solidarity with the mobilizations against the destruction of chemical weapons in the Mediterranean and we call on the peoples of the Mediterranean to oppose these dangerous plans!
CP of Albania
Algerian Party for Democracy and Socialism PADS (Algeria)
Pole of Communist Revival in France
Union of Revolutionary Communists of France
CP of Greece
CP Italy
Lebanese CP
CP of the People’s of Spain
CP of Turkey
I'm just curious - what are the actual chances of the process creating toxic byproducts, specifically at levels that really pose a danger based on the quantity of chemical weapons? Is the process of destroying these weapons any more inherently dangerous than their existence or transit? I doubt anyone would want to live near mustard gas storage tanks just as much as these CPs are opposing their destruction. And if the risk is there, then the risk will exist no matter where they go - yes the Med is enclosed so it would keep more toxins in, but to what extent would it make it worse? Surely, if I'm a West African fisherman I don't want it destroyed in the Atlantic any more than they would in the Mediterranean Sea.
It's hard to tell whether or not this is justified or just NIMBYism from the statement provided. They didn't even do us the favor of telling which monopolies are doing the destruction of the chemicals, or what the chemical process is so we can google it ourselves. It just looks like they put in some traditional leftist buzzwords. I'm not saying they don't have reason to concern, but they seem to assume that their reader will believe anything they say, and that there is some kind of easy alternative to the destruction of the chemicals there which would not raise the same kinds of concerns.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
Er, I don't think opposing the dumping of chemical weapons is NIMBYism. If these are shells, they've been known to corrode in the salt water (that's what happened with the German munitions thrown into the sea after WWI) and for the mustard gas to wash ashore, albeit in a form that is not nearly as dangerous as the gas used in warfare.
I guess my question is what the alternative is, and why they would think the alternative is any safer for people in the general vicinity.
Also as far as I can tell, the plan is to process the chemicals into something else, and not to just dump them into the ocean (if it's the case that the chemicals are literally being dumped, then I could see why they are opposing it, but that's not made clear by their statement).
I heard the place where they are doing this is pretty under equipted for it and that there are lot of rumours of bribery and corruption.
The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. What matter where, if I be still the same, And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater?
Here at least We shall be free
I read this and while the sources are rather scant, I don't suppose public transparency is a mafia strong suit.
Almost as charming as the Fukushima cleanup crews.
"Only a fool lets somebody else tell him who his enemy is." - A. Shakur
"There is nothing here, no oil, no strategic location. We will recommend to our government not to intervene as the risks are high and all that is here are humans."
- Rwanda, 1994
