A Croatian Commemoration: Bleiburg and the Mare Nostrum

A month ago, I spent the weekend attending a ceremony in the intense afternoon heat of the Bleiburg field in Austria. It was a 70th anniversary commemoration for the forced repatriations of 200,000 surrendered, disarmed ex-combatants and 500,000 civilians (figures estimated by the British Army at the time) from Croatia. A forced repatriation, by the British Army, to Tito’s partisans. In May 1945, after the end of the second world war, it was known exactly what fate awaited those people, which was one of the reasons that Churchill opposed the policy. Yet it was done under the direct advice of the later British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.

The events are well recorded in Nikolai Tolstoy’s 1986 book ‘The Minister and the Massacres’, as well as many subsequent publications. The Croatians (other smaller groups such as Serbs, Hungarians, Slovenes were also attempting to flee the partisans at the time) were fleeing from the advancing partisans, who were supported by the Red Army, because the partisans’ policy had become one of killing anyone who had not supported them during the war. Tito intended to create a new political order for his philosophy across Yugoslavia – and the best way to secure that was by removing all political opponents to do so. Where ‘opponent’ translated as ‘non-supporter’…using the American Civil War parlance, ‘if you were not for us, then you are against us’.

The Croatians knew that the partisans were likely to kill anyone who had not supported them during the war, so hence the mass exodus as the partisans swept forward. They had the option of standing to fight and hold Zagreb, but with so many women and children, they knew that it would become a bloodbath, as well as the destruction of their capital. Nonetheless, with the curse of hindsight we can look back and see their decision to surrender to the British Army in Austria, through a misguided sense that the British Army would treat them honorably as prisoners of war, as fatally naive. Instead of sending them to refugee camps to await resettlement, Harold Macmillan’s officers circumvented the agreed policy arranged between the US and Churchill, and arranged for them to be sent back into the waiting hands of their pursuers.

The accounts of the treatment of the surrendered and unarmed are harrowing tales of barbarism in what was – technically – peacetime. Hands were pierced with knives so that two people could be wired together through their flesh, making it that much more difficult for them to escape before they reached the point where they would be executed. Gold fillings were removed from the living on the edge of pits and tank trenches before they were shot. The graves were then mined to cover the mountains of corpses. Furthermore, since Croatia and Slovenia again won their independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, there has been the opportunity to uncover more than 1,200 mass graves throughout those two countries, which have been identified as the direct consequences of that act of allied betrayal. For death marches commenced from Austria across the length and breadth of the country, the dying falling as they were starved and left behind, with intermittent stops wherever suitable geological features allowed for the creation of another mass grave for the unfortunates. As an example, these 1,200 sites include two pits in the forest of Kočevski Rog, that contain the skeletal remains of over 30,000 victims ‘generated’ in a mere 8 days (figures come from a partisan participant, as only a handful have ever been completely excavated to be thoroughly documented).

Although this event had had recognition from emigre Croatians in publications dating as far back as 1947, actually attending the site had been a dangerous thing, some mourners being attacked and even killed by Yugoslav state police. (The Yugoslav state police appear to have operated with some impunity throughout Europe, if the current trial in Munich of a former head of Yugoslav state police – UDBA – for the deaths of 68 Croatian emigres in Germany alone is anything to go by.) Things have changed with Croatian independence – for a start, people are allowed to discuss the fact that Bleiburg and the ensuing massacre happened now, where they could not have under Yugoslavia. According to Austrian police, 61,300 people attended the public memorial mass with me this year, at the site of where a population fleeing the advance of Tito’s partisans surrendered, before being systematically slaughtered by the very enemy that they sought to evade through surrendering to Allied Forces.

In court, some years after Tolstoy’s book was published, the only justification presented by Lord Aldington (then Brigadier Austin Low) for knowingly handing the surrendered – predominantly civilian – masses over to certain death at the hands of the partisans’ execution squads, was one of logistical problems in incarcerating and maintaining camps containing such a quantity of political refugees. During reflection on that Austrian field on the 16th May, I was struck by the resonance of this callous decision with recent pronouncements by Theresa May on the ‘Mare Nostrum’ question, where refugees were knowingly left to die in the Mediterranean, through a policy of deliberately cutting funding to the pan-European safety net, on the spurious grounds that it would ‘only encourage’ people already attempting to avoid Islamic State kidnap (and, ultimately, death) squads in order to escape through Libya. Many of those migrants of today have been displaced as a result of the US/British invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the subsequent unplanned endgames that ultimately left chaos in the wake of the departing troops. It seems that there are some shameful attitudes in British foreign policy in Europe that have changed tragically little despite the lessons of the ensuing 70 years: a humanitarian crisis is merely an administrative burden – and not a moral responsibility – that can be easily shirked.

In his final article of 2014, reviewing the last epic year in Scotland, Ian Bell argued that in his opinion the Referendum was lost “because too many of us were afraid to say why a Scot would not want to be British.” The cynicism of the British participation in the Bleiburg tragedy is certainly something that makes me profoundly ashamed to be identified in such a way – and it seems that that attitude is still alive and well with regards to the Mediterranean.

 

“We have an absolute moral obligation in the interests of humanity to do our share in a European effort to help people in extremity. If you look at many of the places these people are fleeing from, this country – and others – had a substantial role in the destabilization of those countries.” (Alex Salmond)

Advertisements

Electoral Registration Forms & Sassenachs: Ideals and Identity

It has been a much argued point over how much the Referendum was about identity. It was not the primary driver of the independence campaign, although identity undoubtedly had that role in earlier decades. The ‘No’ campaign very much tried to pretend that it was about identity, in an ethnic sense, Alistair Darling even going so far as to support the idea that it was ‘blood and soil’ nationalism (i.e. next-of-kin to national socialism in Germany – thanks, Al). On the ‘Yes’ side, one particular polling analyst very much expected that there would be a direct correlation between the census figures showing 62% of those living in Scotland solely identifying themselves as Scottish (with no element of ‘Britishness’ in how they self-identified), and the numbers who would vote ‘Yes’ – on the grounds of how could anyone think of voting against their self-identified country’s existence. Although this made perfect sense to me as a perspective, it is clear from the eventual 45% vote in September that he – like dear Alistair – was wrong.

Interestingly, within a couple of weeks of the vote, many of us were again challenged on how we self-identify, with requests to confirm our registration on the electoral role by the end of that month. One thing that was interesting was that there was a hefty fine involved if you failed to respond – and I could not help but think of Aberdeen Council’s apparent attempts to punish supposed ‘Yes’ voters who had avoided council tax payments for decades, yet had come back on the register for the Referendum. Not everyone on the register was asked to confirm our registration – my mother got a standard ‘you do not need to do anything about this’, presumably because her voting address has been unchanged for some 50 years. But I, as someone who recently moved their registered address from Glasgow to Edinburgh, was asked to confirm. (I recently found that I had had a similar letter to my mother sent to my former Glasgow address – and indeed  a second polling card had been sent to me there, as well, despite me deregistering from that address.) The registration process was straightforward, asking for a very few answers to supplement the details held. As sending something by post seems such an involved process these days (I’ve clearly sent too many e-mails in my life), I opted to complete the form online. As I clicked through the options, I came to the identity question. But the options were British, Irish, or other nationality. No Scottish option was available.

Identity is of course a very personal issue, in terms of how we engage with the concept, so this post has to be a very personal viewpoint – perhaps even more so than the others. Everybody defines their interface with culture, origins and living space in a unique way, very much weighted by the significance or impact that those individual factors have made on that given person both currently and in their development. In that regard, I confess that I have never seen or identified myself as British, and have always endeavoured to find other options to select, when confronted by tick-boxes and pull-down menus that mad such an assumption about me, treasuring those few that offered ‘Scottish’ or ‘Scotland’ as options. Indeed, it was an online discussion with a colleague in the north of England back in February-March, which dealt with just such issues as the Scottish experience or identity within the British Empire and thereafter, that convinced me that I should start this political blog (so blame Mike Boyd). I think that as much as Scots ended up being the engine of the British Empire, and therefore were complicit in its many appalling acts, I recognize that it was not necessarily the case that they had a great deal of choice in their overall participation, given the very deliberate restrictions on their opportunities at home, and perhaps as a result I feel far more shame than any sense of pride at being associated with the concept of Britain. I realise – of course – that that is far from many people’s experience on the ‘Yes’ (let alone the ‘No’) side, and was very proud to work alongside those with very differing senses of identity who recognised the common cause of the need for independence to make Scotland (and, perhaps, the world) a much better place.

That said, I am hardly a flag-waver, painting my face blue and white at every chance to attend a sporting event. My need to promote a sense of Scottish-ness within Scotland has never been that strong. Identity is a complex weave, interacting with place and culture, ramifications of language, music and – particularly in Scotland’s case – aspects of textiles. Musically, I am hardly a folk music fan (although in primary school we were all taught ‘Flower of Scotland’), but then again I also like popular music that varyingly displays its Scottish roots, whether Big Country’s skirls, the Proclaimers, Simple Minds or the bagpipes in some early AC/DC tracks. As a ‘lowlander’ from the central belt (and not even from Glasgow, but Edinburgh – the shame!!), perhaps it was some vague sense of ‘not being that Scottish’ that led me to learn Gaelic some years ago, in some quest to embrace a concept of identity. Nor do I wear the kilt at every opportunity. This is partly because I have never felt that comfortable with this aspect – my family does not have an ‘automatic’ tartan and yes, I know (as my Auntie Sheena, a former kiltmaker, has on many occasion been at pains to try and impress on me) one can be entitled to wear whichever tartan one likes, as the ‘family tartan’ idea is very much a 19th century confection. Nonetheless…the once-modern myth of the family tartan entitlement does now feel old enough (to me, at least) and comfortable enough to be a ‘genuine’ tradition – so I am happy to buy into it.

Therefore, I have not had a kilt of my own since I was around 7 years old – save for rentals when I was acting as best man or usher at weddings, when the choice of tartan was up to those who were headlining the ceremony.

Until this year.

When I saw that a tartan had been produced for the ‘Yes’ Campaign, I knew that this was finally a tartan that I could wear feeling complete entitlement. More than that – (and even better) it was a political statement. My brother married again in May, and for that event I finally bought my first kilt, and was able to wear the ‘Yes’ kilt for a wide array of international guests (many from down south) as an usher. It was really good to do.

The strange thing is, that my dynamic with these badges of identity has changed with the Referendum – perhaps because of the result, although I feel that the incidents that I am about to relay would probably have happened with a ‘Yes’ result as well. Firstly, I attended a conference in Berlin a few weeks ago, presenting two posters on some research I had been doing. Needing a blue and white background for one of them, I suddenly found myself importing an image of a saltire…and printed it, so that it resembled a large flag in the middle of the poster session (it worked well with the rest of the design too, by the way – at least, that’s my story). What was this? The only flag I had ever owned in my life was the Croatian one (see earlier posts for tha story), so this was slightly strange behaviour. On my regular bus journeys to the centre of Edinburgh in order to help staff the Marchmont stall, I passed many souvenir tat shops presenting overpriced tacky Scottish garments…yet, on those trips I began to be drawn to a saltire hoodie, of all things. As I saw it each day from the bus, I made a deal with myself that if there was a ‘Yes’ vote, I would buy one – perhaps to wear at the inevitable Hogmanay Party to end them all at the close of 2014. There was no ‘Yes’ vote – but I bought it today, for some work I am about to do out in China. Again – I believe this is quite uncharacteristic.

Back to the electoral registration form. When, in my frustration at an online form that seemed to smugly want to present me as British when I had just been part of a campaign trying to mark a separate, cleaner identity on this country, I had ended up putting myself down as a Chinese national from Ireland, as a result of refusing the mantle of the British identity, I abandoned the online process. I went back to the printed form that had been sent to me in the post, as I did not have a memory of it being so polarizing when I had first scanned it. Sure enough – the handwritten form allowed you to define yourself however you wished in an empty white box. I wrote ‘Scottish’ (as with all my visa application forms, to whichever embassy), signed the form, and sent it off.

So, what have we learned – if anything – from this mish-mash of identity-related experiences? I certainly regard myself as Scottish – not as some ‘pure-bred’ sense of identity, but as part of a relaxed acknowledgement of our joyously mongrel nation. I take that identity to mean what I want and need it to – as everyone else does – but that has somehow changed for me during this year. I feel more uncompromising in my sense of a Scottish identity than ever before, particularly within Scotland itself – perhaps because it represents the Nation of Yes, just as much as any older idea of Scotland – a place where it does not matter where you were born or where your parents were from, or if you are from the Lowlands instead of the Highlands or – heaven forfend!! – from Edinburgh instead of Glasgow. I think there are a lot of things to be proud of in the idea of how an independent Scotland can be – and the simple possibility of being different to what we were – and what we have historically been part of – is reason enough for optimism. And I think also that that is a part of why so many more saltires are on display around Scotland, than there were before the Referendum. That symbol has become more important to people than it was before.

Scotland can be something greater than what it would leave behind it. Much of the rest of the UK either has a longer way to go – or is on a very, very different journey of identity to a very different destination.

 

“The men and women of Yes should live and work as if they already belonged to an independent country. And perhaps, in a sense, that is what Scotland has now become.” (Neal Ascherson, 21st September 2014)

All Those ‘Wee Things’: The Loss to Labour

One of the most bizarre manifestations of Labour’s tribalism (in terms of opposing Scottish Government policy simply because it is proposed by the SNP, regardless of whether or not it is coincident with supposed Labour principles) is Johann Lamont’s opposition to the policies put into place to help support people. Free prescriptions, free personal care for the elderly, free higher education, even free bus travel for pensioners – all are railed against, as part of a ‘something for nothing culture’.

The NHS in Scotland has always been independent from the rest of the NHS (in England and Wales, accountable to the Secretary of State for Health) from its formation in July 1948 (when it was accountable directly to the Secretary of State for Scotland), although this is regularly obscured by the ‘No’ campaign, in order to portray a potential change in status with independence, that is not actually real. If one was to believe that the opposition of Lamont’s Labour Party in Scotland was actually on principle rather than purely tribal, it would indeed be hard to envisage them doing anything other than opposing Clem Attlee’s government when they originally brought the Scottish National Health Service into being.

Because it is tribal, this philosophy demands homogenization across the UK – not by raising the rest of the UK up, but by lowering Scotland to accommodate the approach adopted elsewhere. In effect it argues that these set priorities are wrong if those outside Scotland cannot also get them (thus somewhat undermining the point of a devolved government) – that to make a priority of healthcare or education over London-centric vanity projects such as Crossrail, the Westminster makeover or the London sewage upgrade, is simply wrong. The idea that the rest of the UK should follow Scotland’s example does not seem to be accepted – everyone should simply have equal levels of misery (save for London and the SE), and that appears to be more important than the welfare of the electorate.

The total costs of these policies are around £1 billion a year (£590M for free university tuition, £200M for free personal care for the elderly, £60M for free prescription charges – did you know only 10% of the population ever paid for their prescriptions? so it was only ever marginally cost-effective to charge anyone for them in the first place – and £180M for free bus passes for the over sixties) out of the Scottish Government’s budget of £64 billion. And it seems that the opposition of the Labour Party in Scotland to these ‘wee things’ is having a cost to its electoral support.

I can remember meeting former Edinburgh Lord Provost Eleanor McLaughlin, in order to explore ways that the city could express support for Croatian self-determination in the wake of the attempted assassination of a political émigré in Kirkcaldy. Although she had a massive office, she was extremely human, even kicking off her shoes to sit in her armchair and relax during our meeting. I remember being impressed at this – in some ways a very warm and open gesture – and it is not entirely surprising that Eleanor and other former Labour grandees from Strathclyde Region or even Glasgow City Council, have come out in support of a ‘Yes’ vote. It seems that they see the threats of a ‘No’, the opportunities of a ‘Yes’ and how it is more congruent with core Labour values of compassion and support. But the current Labour representatives in Scotland look to be about to pay a somewhat heavy electoral price for their conduct in opposition since 2011.

An October 2013 poll has suggested that in the event of a ‘No’ vote, Labour would be subject to an even bigger backlash from the electorate than it was in the last Holyrood election, with only 47% of 2011’s Labour voters choosing them again for the devolved Scottish Parliament, as against 55% of their voters in elections to an independent Scottish Parliament the same year. It is, of course, hard to disentangle how much of this potential electoral collapse is a consequence of their leadership, as opposed to their opposition to the Scottish Government, or simply their support of a ‘No’ vote. But the loss to Labour appears greater if they ‘win’ the ‘No’ campaign, than if they lose it.

In short, for the Labour MSPs, the loss would appear to be their future, if they continue to espouse support for the ‘No’ campaign.

 

“At one time we had 50 Labour MPs out of 79 MPs in Scotland and they couldn’t do a damned thing to protect this country from Margaret Thatcher.” (Jim Sillars, June 2014)

United Voices Across Borders: The Power of True Internationalism

I’ve just come back from an academic conference in Italy.  It was an annual meeting of a pan-European organization, and during the lunch at the end of the last field trip, some Czechs and Slovaks suggested that we should each sing songs from our country – and I was pleased to say that (aside from singing something rather predictable for Scotland) I was also able to suggest songs for Russian and Italian colleagues that were having trouble settling on a suitable one. (Admittedly, my Italian offering was the full song in English from the ‘Just One Cornetto’ advert, which everyone except the Italians had evidently seen in their country, but at least I could sing ‘May there always be Sunshine’ in the original Russian…)

In this company, it was hard not to reflect on independence for Scotland within that international prism. I like to think that I’ve always had a determinedly outward and internationalist outlook, that I have never found had any contradiction with my desire for Scottish self-determination.  To be honest, my involvement in campaigning for Croatian self-determination in the late eighties came very much from the similarities that I saw in their position to Scotland’s, and my own frustration at the lack of broad support that I found for this principle at home.  When 1988 saw the twentieth anniversary of the Prague Spring, I felt galvanised and inspired by the documentaries broadcast (primarily by Channel 4) at the time – as well as a sense of shame at Britain’s role in selling out Czechoslovakia at Berchtesgaden, and abandoning them to Germany in a doomed policy of appeasement.  I watched with some anguish at the crushing of the pro-democracy movement in China in June 1989 – an event denied by some of my Chinese colleagues whom I work with today, although I watched it live on the BBC at the time – and was elated by the fracturing of the Berlin Wall scant months later.  I travelled to Berlin the following month, determined to experience some of this amazing history…and managed to pick some pieces of the (by then somewhat destitute) Wall for myself – and while I was there, Ceaușescu was overthrown in a coup, as the dominoes seemed to continue falling. Within a couple of years, a General Election loomed at Westminster – The Scotsman newspaper under Magnus Linklater (before its somewhat radical political and editorial realignment) announced that more than 50% of people in Scotland wanted independence – but the proportion of those that would actually vote for the Scottish National Party (the only party that was actually interested in giving it to them) was paradoxically half of that figure.  Again, that frustrating sense that self-belief was lacking.

So my concept of Scotland’s future as a self-determining country has always been within the context of an international vision, not some parochial diminished and introspective one, where the world is separated into ‘foreigners’ and ‘us’.  On the flight back to Edinburgh, I found myself sitting with a charming couple from Vienna, who were enthusiastically supportive of Scottish independence.  They have been coming to Scotland for years, and their confidence in our ability was endearing – ‘The Scots are the ones who stopped the Roman Empire, so just remember that’ said Helmuth – and after the last couple of months of Downing Street-requested international statements against a ‘Yes’ vote, it was pleasantly refreshing.  As we talked through the duration of the flight, I found myself coming out with quite a battery of arguments, which I had not realised were at my fingertips.  This started to make me more confident, and I could feel my resolve to get involved directly on the streets increasing – but the international show of support was also impressive to me.

In this international context, I have always found the idea of a ‘Yes’ vote as somehow breaking workers’ solidarity to be somewhat bizarre.  Whether Glasgow, Grimsby or Gdansk, surely the idea of internationalism is that solidarity knows NO borders? (Not forgetting that during 13 years in government Labour steadfastly refused to repeal the Tory law making solidarity acts between workers in Britain illegal.) There is no reason for there to be a difference between the solidarity given from a low-paid worker in Banff to one in Barnsley, Bruges or Boston – unless one is ring-fencing solidarity within a British nationalist’s perspective. This dismisses what one person has described as ‘the power of united voices across borders’.

Just as this vote could achieve nuclear disarmament for the UK by forcing Westminster to consider whether to embrace the costs of rehousing the weapons, or just grasp the thistle and disarm, Tommy Sheppard (former assistant secretary-general of the Scottish Labour Party under Jack McConnell) has noted the ability of an independent Scottish Government to operate with other like-minded governments in Europe, to enable them to actually provide some protection for people in the rest of the UK, in spite of the fact that they might be being led by a differently-inclined Conservative government at Westminster. All of this is leading as an international example – being allowed to participate internationally in a way that we are currently blocked from doing, by an increasingly inward-turning and introspective British government. And sadly that introspection even includes Labour and their bizarre problem with ‘foreigners’ as they lurch ever further right to catch up with the conservatives and UKIP.

“I have come to the view that it is easier to change the world if we start first with a country of five million than by pressing the case within a much larger country where many are deaf to the argument.” Tommy Sheppard (former assistant secretary-general of the Scottish Labour Party under Jack McConnell)

What price legitimacy?: The beautiful, shining example

I’ve seen a couple of shows at the world’s biggest arts Festival, which started in Edinburgh last week, concerned in one way or another with the Referendum. This is something of a protest after the announcement last year that the Festival organisers would not be inviting new work on the Referendum for the Edinburgh Festival in the referendum year. The first performance that I saw was the preview of Alan Bissett’s new play ‘The Pure, The Dead and the Brilliant’. Looking at this light satire of the politics surrounding the Referendum reminded me of the unusualness of the context for this movement for self-determination. We are used to seeing political movements for change in the context of extremity. Brutality, torture, suppression of identity. Is there a ‘sliding scale’ of ‘wrongness’, that means that, at some point it becomes justifiable to start a self-determination or political reform movement, but below some critical threshold of abuse, it is not legitimate? Does one really need a dedicated report or rating from Amnesty International before one has the political kudos to be a ‘legitimate’ political movement for change? I think not. That way leads to the argument that only action of armed struggle – or armed containment/suppression by the controlling state – can validate a political movement for self-determination, which is clearly absurd.
As much as my political memories regarding Scottish independence go back to the seventies, my ‘political awakening’ (if it could be described as such) was in the late eighties, when I became involved in the campaign for Croatian self-determination. For me, there were some parallels between Croatia and Scotland, in terms of a historical monarchic union when one royal bloodline ended, the wealthier yet junior partner in a political union, with moves for independence. At the time, I was less aware of demonisation of those campaigning for independence or aspects of suppression of cultural identity, such as had been isolated in Amnesty International’s report noted – although to be fair many of these have really come to the fore in Britain since the election of the majority government at Holyrood (see lists of the huge increase of BBCTV programmes featuring the word Britain or British in the title since then). During this time, amongst a variety of early campaigning experiences, I met with Eleanor McLaughlin, then Lord Provost of Edinburgh, a prominent Labour figure (one of many who have come out for ‘Yes’ over the last 6 months), to discuss ways that the City Council might express some degree of support or solidarity for the movement. This strategy of trying to engage Scottish political bodies for expressions of support had come about as a result of the shooting of a Croatian political exile in Kirkcaldy by an assassin sent by the Yugoslav state (as came out during the trial in Dunfermline Sheriff court). I can remember that at this time, there was a palpable sense that in some intangible way the near martyring of this political campaigner in some way added weight or legitimacy to the campaign for Croatian self-determination.
In this context, two other Edinburgh Festival plays (‘3,000 Trees’ and ‘The Death of Willie MacRae’) dealing with the apparent murder of the anti-nuclear dumping lawyer (and SNP activist) by the security services in Easter 1985, is something of an anomaly. We don’t need assassinations, internment, or abuse through interrogation, to make the claim of self-determination legitimate. We don’t need (no matter how many might desire it) Alex Salmond to be imprisoned on Robben Island for thirty years to validate the Yes movement. Governments can abuse their position and forfeit their right to rule, without having to go that far – and that is one of the beauties of what is happening here, that Scotland has the opportunity to set this shining international example, of major political change happening without any violence at all. If the political system does not reflect the needs of the people, then that is justification enough that it needs to be changed.
There needs to be no violence or shedding of blood: only the pencil in our hand that makes the shape of the saltire in a flag-shaped box (for either option) on the ballot paper on September 18th. The beauty of Scotland setting such an example to the world was not lost on David Trimble (a very definite unionist) who endorsed the positive aspects of such a political transition through the ballot box, in terms of the model that it could potentially demonstrate for Northern Ireland as a new and positive influence for political movements elsewhere.

”Nuclear waste should be stored where Guy Fawkes put his gunpowder.” (Willie MacRae at the Mullwharcher Enquiry on nuclear dumping, 1980)