-------------------=========================-------------------
                   G  R  E  N  P  E  A  C  E

                   P r e s s   R e l e a s e
                                    14.10.94
-------------------=========================-------------------

Defendory: A theatre of future wars

ATHENS, October 4, 1994 (GP) GREENPEACE activists organized a demonstration during the opening of the military material exposition held in Piraeus (GREECE) under the name of DEFENDORY '94, revealing the true nature of the international arms trade and calling for an end to all activities aimed at the promotion of mass destruction systems.

Thirteen activists chained themselves at the entrance of the exposition venue (Piraeus Port Organization [OLP] building) during the arrival of officials and dignitaries. They brought with them a banner carrying the slogan "Defendory: Trade of Death", and scattered, at the same time, in the space in front of them, figurines resembling amputated human limbs, reminding the destructive effect of modern methods for the extermination of opposing armies and populations.

The majority of the victims in recent wars have been non- combatants. During a recent mission in former Yugoslavia, Greenpeace revealed that the 2-4 million mines placed in its soil will continue to cause countless victims for many decades.

The DEFENDORY international exposition is not an enterprise "contributing to the shielding of national borders and the protection of freedom" as its organizers claim. It constitutes, on the contrary, a step facilitating the international arms trade and the development of new weapons, factors which usually hasten the ignition of military conflicts, contribute decisively to their destructive effect and facilitate the continuation of conflicts making negotiations more difficult. Besides, in the list of official or unofficial visitors and dignitaries to the exposition (the current as well as previous ones), delegates from the "hottest" regions of the planet can be found (i.e. Defendory 92 was visited by a Rwandan delegation). In other regions, even if armed conflicts do not occur, the expenditures for armaments along with military priorities deprive populations, especially those of poor countries, from getting sufficient nutrition, housing, social welfare, medical attention and acceptable environment. Yet these deprivations will, in turn, cause social tensions and disorder, regional or civil conflicts. Arms sales will not shield borders. They will simply make angry hands more deadly. The only ones who stand to win are arms merchants.

GREENPEACE believes that the shrinking of the international mass destruction arms trade must be a global priority. Greenpeace is especially campaigning against those weapons (like mines and cluster bombs) with indiscriminate effect. Naturally, this cannot be done without a programme for the conversion of military industry to civil, without building relations of cooperation and trust between peoples, without the creation of the conditions necessary for a viable and sustainable future.

GREENPEACE proposes the immediate abolition of the production and trade of conventional weapons of mass destruction, such as modern mines. These weapons belong to the same category as chemical and biological weapons, as they hurt not only combatants but non-combatants and the environment as well. The organization also calls for assuming initiatives for the development of international conventions resulting in the banning of these weapons (an example is the need for revising the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious of to Have Indiscriminate Effects being worked on by the United Nations).

GREENPEACE calls for the Greek Government:

NOTES

1. MINES: PRODUCTION AND USE

2. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

In the United Nations there is an effort to revise the convention regulating weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction. However, the process followed at present runs the risk of resulting in the legitimisation rather than the banning of such weapons. Many countries are willing to reach such an agreement. Yet military circles, as well as interests linked to the arms industry and trade, seem for the moment to prevail.
Joey, 20 Okt 1994