The Federal Government has already breached its recently announced 'Australian Agenda' at the UN, succumbing to US pressure to abstain from a vote on depleted uranium weapons that would strengthen civilian protections.
At the UN First Committee vote held earlier this month, which will be ratified by the General assembly this week, 138 nations voted in favour of the resolution seeking greater transparency and a precautionary approach in the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons, known to be radioactive and chemically toxic. Four nations, the US, France, Israel and the UK, all users of DU weapons, voted against the resolution and pressured other nations.(Continues below)
Australia abstained, isolating itself from the majority of nations and blatantly breaching the admirable 'Australian agenda' which emphasises arms control, nuclear non-proliferation and women's rights. This leaves Australia in an awkward position ahead of taking up its temporary position in the UN Security Council.
The resolution put forward a non-threatening, commonsense approach that aims to provide better protection to civilians left to deal with the toxic legacy of weapons. A significant majority of states accept that precaution is justified and recognise the need for post-conflict measures to protect civilian health.
Depleted uranium, used in conventional weapons for its armour piercing capabilities, presents a clear risk to human health and the environment, the greatest victims being women, children and the unborn; as well as entire communities struggling to utilise land for agriculture in a toxic eco-system.
An estimated 400,000kg of depleted uranium has been dispersed in Iraq since 1991. The long-term impact on civilians is unknown, but several studies have linked it to a dramatic rise in birth defects in Basra and Fallujah.
On a recent visit to Iraq I spent a week in Fallujah Hospital. Each day I met babies with birth defects, including a new-born with a bloodied, fleshy hole in her back — a classic case of spina bifida, a common occurrence now along with brain dysfunction, spinal conditions, unformed limbs and cleft palet.
Another day I walked through Fallujah cemetery which is littered with small, unmarked graves for babies, and stood with Marwan and Bashir, a young, healthy couple, at the grave of their baby Mohamed, who lived five minutes after birth. He was their fourth baby to die. They will not try again.
Gynaecologists' recommendation to the women of Fallujah is simpy to stop falling pregnant, as it is likely they will not give birth to a healthy baby. The implication is shocking: a city of about 300,000 with a generation of young women who may never be mothers; and another generation who may not live, at least not a healthy life.
Four new studies on the health crisis in Fallujah have been released in the last three months. The studies suggest the babies are dying of wounds from a war they never saw. That this epidemic is the legacy of toxic weapons dispersed in this community in the ferocious attacks by US forces in 2004.
The Australian abstention was lodged despite a vigorous community campaign for a 'yes' vote, and has been questioned for its inconsistency by experts, international activists, the Australian Campaign to Ban Uranium Weapons, and now by Labor MPs.
The Australian Defence Forces deem depleted uranium — the 'Agent Orange' of today — a hazard and will not use it. And a 2010 trade agreement with the USA specifically does not allow Australian uranium to be used for depleted uranium weapons — a significant and intentional inclusion.
Sydney Labor MP John Murphy raised the issue in Parliament noting the Government's appropriate wariness. 'The Australian Defence Force and the government are wise to take such a precautionary approach considering the well-documented hazards of DU weapons,' he said.
'It would therefore be consistent to extend this precaution to assist civilian communities caught up in conflicts where DU weapons are used ... Considering this precautionary approach, it is logical that Australia would change its vote from abstaining to voting yes.'
Despite the Government's acknowledgement of the hazardous nature of DU, Australia has repeated its line that the science does not support precaution. Yet the studies cited are deemed by experts to be outdated. They are short-term studies, none looking at long-term impact on civilians, and are now superseded by new science and research.
Many researchers argue the science is there and it is compelling. But even if there remain questions and uncertainty, the precautionary principle should apply.
Militaries take extreme precaution in handling DU weapons. The spirit of this UN resolution is simply to extend this precaution to civilians, who, because of the nature of modern urban warfare, see battles arrive on their doorsteps and invade their streets and houses.
This issue draws attention to the dangers that remain in neighbourhoods when armies pack up and leave. Remnants of war that explode, such as landmines and cluster bombs, attract attention and clearance programs. But another deadly remnant exists, the toxic remnant of war whose silent legacy is still unclear.
Donna Mulhearn is a freelance journalist and peace activist. She will return for her fifth visit to Iraq early next year. Photos by Donna Mulhearn. Follow Donna on Twitter