"The US government targeted American Indians (for nuclear waste disposal) for several reasons: their lands are some of the most isolated in North America, they are some of the most impoverished and, consequently, most politically vulnerable and, perhaps most important, tribal sovereignty can be used to bypass state environmental laws. How ironic that, after centuries of attempting to destroy it, the US government is suddenly interested in promoting American Indian sovereignty - just so it can dump its lethal garbage! All Indian treaties and agreements with the US government have been broken. Today's Indians remember yesterday's broken promises. ... The Indians cannot trust the federal government and certainly cannot trust the nuclear industry whose driving force is monetary profit."

A divide-and-rule strategy is used in Australia to overcome Aboriginal opposition. Here is Kevin Buzzacott from the Arabunna people, who live in a region which hosts the Roxby Downs uranium mine and may also host a radioactive waste dump unless it can be stopped:

"You boast about your community consultation but we know how our people have been manipulated, bribed, tricked and contracts signed under duress without even a reasonable translation into our own language. This sets up a terrible division amongst us all over your greed and these development issues. We have seen how the mining companies set up rival land councils to counter the claims of the rightful authority for the country. We call them the 'rent a crowd mob'. This has caused so much tension in communities that we are living in a pressure cooker situation. Lives are being lost. ... There needs to be a moratorium on the nuclear industry until this mess is sorted out."

The government says that Billa Kalina, the region in South Australia where it plans to build a radioactive waste dump, is a pastoral lease, not Aboriginal land. Kevin Buzzacott responds:

"Our land was taken by massacre and displacement. No treaties were even signed. We have never ceded out sovereignty. Our sovereignty cannot be extinguished. Under international law we still own the land and will always oppose the radioactive waste dump."

Often, Aboriginal communities are forced to allow mining to receive funding for services that other Australians expect for free. This issue is discussed by Vincent Forrester, a former chairperson of the Northern Territory National Aboriginal Conference:

"We must break this dependency on mining activity for money for essential services. It is morally bankrupt. No Aboriginal community should be put in the position of deciding on development that is tied to the uranium industry. Until all Aboriginal service matters are met by direct grants from federal treasury, our people have little choice in this matter."

"Racism makes the continuing production of nuclear waste possible. If the white people who make decisions about nuclear waste felt that the people of color in poor areas are as valuable as the decision makers' own mothers and fathers and sons and daughters, would they continue to dump nuclear waste in those areas? If tailings from uranium mining were located next to the homes of investment bankers instead of the homes of indigenous people, would uranium mining continue? The continuation of the nuclear fuel cycle depends ... on the practice of human sacrifice. It depends on affluent whites deciding to risk the health and lives of people who are not affluent or white. This is what 'acceptable risk' often means in practice."

The overall pattern in the nuclear industry is the familiar pattern of imperialism: the third world is used as a source of raw materials (uranium) and as a (radioactive) waste dump. In addition, third-world colonies have often been used for weapons testing, and in some cases as a supply of human guinea-pigs (e.g. US weapons testing on the Marshall Islands).

"Besides industrial pollutants, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and Native Hawaiians have been systematically exposed to the dangers and perils of nuclear testing. The combined result of this exposure should be a crime against humanity, and the perpetrators of these criminal and insane acts should be brought to justice and severely penalized. As it turns out, it is the nations of France, United States, China and others who perpetrate the crimes, and in the language of "national security" and war preparation, these criminal acts are legitimized, made to appear sane."

On the question of Aboriginal support for uranium mining, Jamie Pittock (from the Northern Territory Environment Centre) says:

"The traditional owners in the Kakadu area have been harassed by mining companies for 15 years, and people are being asked to process so many exploration license applications. They are being dragged into meetings two and three times a week, and so they are under enormous pressure on these mining questions. We believe that people such as those in the Koongarra area are being coerced into agreeing to that mine.

The traditional owners have not had access to balanced information. We have sought for some time to be present at meetings concerning mining proposals so we can present information that balances that of the mining companies. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.

We respect the situation in which the traditional owners find themselves. They obviously require additional resources to address such things as health needs. However, we don't think that the self-determination that the Northern Land Council is on about can be achieved if you haven't got the information with which to make an informed judgement. For example we are unaware of the traditional owners being informed about Indonesia's nuclear reactor program and the likelihood of the mines in Kakadu supplying uranium to it and the implications for the traditional owners if an accident to occur. During the wet season an accident at any one of those reactors would contaminate much of northern Australia.

The traditional owners of Jabiluka have not made any decision in favour of the current proposal for the Jabiluka mine. We believe there is a degree of conflict of interest between the NLC's income from its mining royalties and its role in advising Aboriginal communities on mining proposals. We believe the current NLC position to support the dumping of the three mines policy doesn't reflect the views of a substantial number of its constituents.

People in these communities are not being offered any alternatives. They are being told you can have a very dirty uranium mine and royalties or, no mine and no royalties. We believe there are alternatives for those communities in Kakadu. Those other economic options haven't been fully explored, although groups like the Jabiluka Association who have done a tremendous amount to develop alternative economic enterprises for the traditional owners.

Aboriginal groups concerned about uranium mining need to speak up if they wish their concerns to be considered. At the moment the main message politicians are getting in Canberra is the NLC message that Aboriginal people want uranium mining, which in our view is not the full story by any means."