nuclear-news

UK`s MoD report reveals over 260 safety incidents at Clyde nuclear bases

from Sunday Herald, 20 April 2014

http://www.robedwards.com/2014/04/mod-report-reveals-over-260-safety-incidents-at-clyde-nuclear-bases.html

Over 260 nuclear safety incidents have been reported at the Clyde naval bases in less than five years, according to an internal Ministry of Defence (MoD) report seen by the Sunday Herald.

Three quarters of the incidents are blamed on human error, and are likely to include fires, leaks and procedural blunders. There have been “issues” with a system meant to protect an explosives store from lightning strikes as well as problems caused by staff and resource shortages.

The MoD has also revealed that it is planning a new conventional explosives handling facility at Coulport to deal with the growing number of nuclear submarines due to be based on the Clyde over the next few years.

The revelations on safety have been described as “chilling”, “shocking” and “simply unacceptable” by the Scottish National Party (SNP), which opposes nuclear weapons. But the MoD said it was “entirely misleading” to focus on the number of reported incidents.

An MoD report on its annual review of safety at the Faslane nuclear submarine base and the Coulport nuclear bomb store in Argyll has been released under freedom of information law. Dated September 2012, it discloses how many “nuclear safety events” have occurred in recent years.

Between April 2008 and August 2012 there were 262 such events, most of which were attributed to “human factors”. More than 50 incidents have been logged every year (see table below).

The report does not describe any of the events, but MoD safety reports released for earlier years have revealed that they can include radioactive contamination, small fires and failing to follow safety rules.

The figures do not include incidents involving nuclear weapons, for which no numbers are given. The report does say, however, that there have been “false alarms and system failures” with an “environmental hazard detection system” for the warheads.

Continue reading →

April 20, 2014 Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Tokyo Shimbun and the flycatcher contaminated with hot particles

20 April 2014

Today’s Tokyo Shimbun evening paper has picked up on this bird from a barn in Iitate which is in Fukushima Prefecture, This local bird, the flycatcher is from the  ficedula family and seems to be systemically exposed with hot particles.

The black spots are radioactive substances, we can guess where the radiation in the body is from. It is from eating insects and plants containing radioactive material and also you can see part of the abdomen is uniformly black.

April 20, 2014 Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Pakistan may ban Japan edible items, Senate told – 3 years too late!

…The scientists had advised the government after they detected high levels of Iodine from the consignments imported from Japan…. (in 2011)

[Arclight2011part2 note: I have made some small changes to the grammar of this article and will contact Kawar Klasra, the journalist, (to confirm I have not manipulated the meaning of the article) whose original article can be found on the link below ]

http://www.nation.com.pk/islamabad/18-Apr-2014/pakistan-may-ban-japan-edible-items-senate-told

ISLAMABAD  – Pakistan has cautioned it may impose a ban on the import of edible items from Japan if traces of radioactive material are found in them,
Federal Minister of Commerce Khurum Dastgeer Khan told the Senate on Thursday, who is currently the Minister of National Food Security and Research. He is tasked to conduct thorough research to determine if the edible items from Japan were/are affected by radioactive contamination or not.
“Concerned officials have been advised to investigate the matter relating to the import of edible items from Japan following the release of radioactivity in Japan. It is up to Ministry of Food Security and Research to advise Ministry of Commerce whether to continue the import of edible items from Japan or impose a ban on it,” Dastgeer told Senate in a written statement.
He was responding to question asked by Senator Suriya Amiruddin who was interested to know whether there is any proposal under consideration of the Government to impose a ban on the import of edible items from Japan so as to avoid the negative effect of radiation in those items.
Almost three years back in April 2011, the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority, had directed authorities dealing with Cargo arriving directly or indirectly from Japan to screen all types of consignments including edible/non-edible items, for radiation.
The directives were issued from the country’s well-reputed institution, the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA) following serious crisis of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant. The PNRA made clearance mandatory for every consignment being imported from Japan.
It is worthy of mentioning here that country’s nuclear scientists had advised the federal government three years back to halt all types of goods from Japan to minimize the threat of radiation following the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis in Japan. The scientists had advised the government after they detected high levels of Iodine from the consignments imported from Japan.
Although India, Pakistan’s immediate neighbour, had banned imports from Japan following the Fukushima Nuclear Plant tragedy, the view that the move to ban imports from Japan could hurt bilateral relationship between the two friendly countries meant that the Pakistani government never imposed a ban on the import of goods from Japan.

April 20, 2014 Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

OpEd by David Polden – CND UK

OP Ed by David Polden of CND UK

20 April 2014
A series of comments and information from D Polden on the state of the nuclear industry
JAPANESE GOVERNMENT CALLS FOR NUCLEAR RE-START

On April 11th,
Japan

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/japan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo
Cabinet approved a new national energy strategy calling for the restarting of
nuclear power stations that meet new safety standards. This restart was first
proposed by the government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/shinzo_abe/index.html?inline=nyt-per
Two months ago, and scraps a promise made by a previous government after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster to phase out atomic energy. Under the new plan, Japan could start as early as August to restart at least some of its 48 operable commercial reactors which were all progressively shut down
after the Fukushima accident spread nuclear radiation across northern Japan. Two reactors at the Oi nuclear power station had in fact been re-started in July 2012, but were both shut-down again in September 2013 for “routine inspections”, but have not re-opened since, so there are currently none operating..

However hostility continues to this policy among the majority of Japanese.
According to an opinion poll conducted on 15th and 16th of March by the newspaper Asahi Shimbun, 59% of the Japanese population now oppose the restart of any or all 48 nuclear reactors as against 28% who would support it. This is an increase on a parallel poll in January when 56% were opposed. Opposition is much stronger among women (66% to 18%) against than among men (51% to 39%). Also, 77% of the population would like all nuclear power plants to be shut down either immediately or gradually;
only 14% would not.

HINKLEY REACTOR SHUT DOWN OVER FEARS OF FUKUSHIMA-STYLE SHUTDOWN

The Daily Mail reported on March 19th that, unreported at the time, one of the two reactors at Dungeness nuclear power station were shut down for five months by its owners EDF last year over fears that it could be flooded – the event that caused the melt-down of three reactors at Fukushima.

This was after the flood defences at Hinkley were reviewed in an official government report in reaction to the Fukushima disaster. The report found that its shingle bank flood defences were “not as robust as previously thought” and could be breached during a catastrophic weather event. Indeed the Daily Mail reported that EDF told the Office for Nuclear Regulation in December 2012 that it “no longer has confidence” in its sea defences being able to defend against rare weather events such as the Japanese tsunami, but the reactor was not shut down till May 22nd 2013.

It re-opened again in October after a new barrier wall was built. A new permanent wall around the site was expected to be completed by the end of March 2014, which it was claimed would upgrade the defences from protecting against a one-in-a-thousand year weather event to a one-in-a-ten-thousand year event. But, as we all know, climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme weather events.

Dungeness is not the only nuclear power station threatened by the sea. In 2010 a
survey of UK nuclear stations by the Department of Energy, Food and Rural Affairs found that the flood risk was “high” at existing Sizewell and Hartlepool nuclear stations as well as Dungeness, and “medium” at Oldbury and Sellafield. It was predicted that by 2080 it would also be “high” at Bradwell and Hinkley. Earlier plans to build new nuclear reactors at Dungeness have been shelved; not so at these other sites.

CZECH POWER PLANT PLANS SCUPPERED BY “PRICE GUARANTEE” DEMANDS

Let us re-cap: last October, the UK government agreed a deal with EDF to guarantee EDF a price of £92.5/Megawatt-hour for the electricity it produces from its planned Hinkley C nuclear power station for a period of 35 years from the time it starts delivering electricity to the grid, this price to be index-linked against inflation.

This year bidders for the contract to build the two reactors at the Temelin nuclear
plant got a very different reaction when they demanded a much smaller price
guarantee from the Czech government in order for it to be prepared to go ahead and build the reactors.

CEZ, the Czech utility 70% owned by the Czech government, put out the contract to build the two reactors to tender as long ago as 2009 and received bids from Areva, Westinghouse and a Russian-Skoda consortium.

Just like the UK government in the Hinkley case, the previous Czech government was planning to offer a cost-difference guarantee for electricity from the two new
reactors “to ensure that investment was viable”. This would cover the difference
between wholesale electricity prices and price levels claimed to be needed to cover construction costs. The Ministry of Industry and Trade wanted this guarantee written into a new long-term Czech energy framework, but this was opposed by the Ministry of Finance. Estimates of its impact varied up to 10% extra on retail power bills. The Industry Ministry was working on €60/MWh; others suggested that €90 would be needed, indexed. CEZ claimed it required €70/MWh for the new units to be profitable, compared with mid-2013 forward prices of under €40.

Faced with this demand the Prime Minister of the new coalition government said it was not open to providing price guarantees that would “dramatically burden” consumers, such as the one being demanded.

Following government confirmation at the beginning of April that it would not
provide any future price guarantees, CEZ informed the bidders that it had cancelled the procurement process.

However the Czech government continues to support in principle in its draft energy policy the development of nuclear power and a new plan for this is to be prepared for this by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade by the end of the year. Info from World Nuclear News, 10/4/14.

HINKLEY PLANS UNDER TRIPLE THREAT

1) In March, Vesna Kolar Planinsic, Chair of the UN’s Implementation
Committee on the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context wrote to the UK’s Department of Communities and Local Government to say that there was “profound suspicion” that the UK failed to properly consult neighbouring countries, including Norway and Spain, over the possible environmental impact that Hinkley Point C could have on them and told the Department to send a delegation to be questioned by the Committee in December.

2) On 19th March, Joan Halley, Chair of the Parliamentary Environmental
Audit Committee, wrote to the European Competition Commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, to dispute government claims that the price guarentee offered to EDF over Hinkley was the same as that offered for electricity generated from renewables and also further government claims that caps on contractors’ liability for decommissioning, waste management and nuclear incidents did not constitute subsidies.

3) On 27th March, An Taisce – the National Trust for Ireland obtained leave
to take its Hinkley Point legal challenge to the Court of Appeal in London. An
Taisce argues that the UK government’s decision to approve Hinkley Point C nuclear plant (on England’s west coast) without first consulting the public in Ireland is contrary to international, EU and English law.
The High Court in London found against An Taisce’s arguments in December 2013, ruling that there was no need to consult the public in Ireland in the circumstances.
However, the letter relaying the views of the UN Implementation Committee referred to in 1) above seems to support An Taisce’s case.

NTAG SUPPLEMENT 2: NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS IN SOUTHERN EUROPE

In the February edition of Nuclear Trains & Nuclear Power I set out the current
situation with nuclear power stations in Britain, Japan, France, the US, China and Germany. In the March edition I included Supplement 1, covering the nuclear power station situation in the rest of Western Europe. The details relating to countries already covered available at request.

PORTUGAL

Portugal  has one research reactor located in the National Nuclear Research Centre. Further nuclear energy activities are not planned in the near future. In 1971, Portugal planned to build an 8,000 MW nuclear power plant to be completed by 2000. Plans were delayed until 1995 when it was decided to not proceed with the project. Since the military coup in April 1974, projects for the construction of nuclear power plants have been postponed or dismissed by the government.

SPAIN

Spain has seven nuclear reactors producing 21% of the country’s electricity, or 7,416 net megawatts. A nuclear power moratorium was enacted by the Socialist government in 1983. For a time the country had a policy of phasing out nuclear power in favour of renewables. The oldest unit (at José Cabrera nuclear power
plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Cabrera_nuclear_power_plant )

was shut down at the end of 2006, 40 years after construction. In December 2012, the Garoña plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Mar%C3%ADa_de_Garo%C3%B1a_Nuclear_Power_Plant
was also shut down. In 2011, the government lifted the 40-year limit on all
reactors, allowing owners to apply for license extensions in 10-year increments.
However, there are no plans for new nuclear plants.

ITALY

Italy started to produce nuclear energy in the early 1960s, but all plants were closed by 1990 following a nuclear power referendum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nuclear_power_referendum,_1987.

An attempt to change the decision was made in 2008 by the government, which called the nuclear power phase-out a “terrible mistake”. The Minister of Economic Development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Economic_Development_(Italy),
Claudio Scajola, proposed to build as many as 10 new reactors, with the goal of increasing the nuclear share of Italy’s electricity supply to about 25% by 2030. However, following the 2011 Japanese nuclear accident , the Italian government put a one-year moratorium on plans to revive nuclear power and then in June 2011, in a referendum, 94% of the electorate voted to cancel plans for new reactors. As 55% of eligible voters participated this made the ban binding on
the government.

SWITZERLAND

Switzerland has five operating nuclear reactors at four stations. Nuclear power accounts for about 40% of the total production of electricity in the country.

There have been many Swiss referenda on the question of nuclear power which have all supported nuclear power except one in 1990 which supported a 10-year moratorium on new nuclear power plant construction. However a 2003 referendum voted against extending this moratorium. Nevertheless in May 2011, as a consequence of Fukushima, the Swiss government abandoned plans to build new nuclear reactors. The country’s five existing reactors will be allowed to continue operating, but will not be replaced at the end of their life spans. The last will go offline in 2034.

AUSTRIA

Started building a nuclear power plant in 1972. This was never opened, as large
demonstrations against the plant were followed by a vote in the Austrian Parliament in 1978 in favour of a 10-year ban on nuclear fission being used to produce energy as well as bans on the storage and transport of nuclear materials in and through the country. In 1997, the Parliament voted to continue the ban indefinitely and remain a non-nuclear country.

GREECE

Has one operational nuclear research reactor but has never shown an
interest in building a commercial one. In 2007 its Finance Minister announced that nuclear was not part of Greece’s plans for future electricity generation.

TURKEY

Though it has had plans for nuclear power stations since 1970, none have as yet
started construction. Nevertheless Turkey has ambitious plans to open 20 nuclear reactors by 2030, the first five of which are planned to start construction by 2018, and be opened by 2023.

MALTA & CYPRUS

No nuclear power stations

April 20, 2014 Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Column: How my trip to a children’s mental asylum in Belarus made me proud to be Irish

I left thinking that what I had witnessed was a drop in the ocean. There are 300 orphanages in Belarus and this is the best one.
I thought about the mundane lives of these children and how the only bit of hope they have is the groups of volunteers that travel over, and the lucky ones who get to come to Ireland during the summer or over Christmas.
Mar 18 2014

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/the-experience-of-a-trip-volunteering-at-a-childrens-asylum-in-belarus-1363102-Mar2014/

Clíodhna Russel
A trip volunteering at a children’s asylum in Belarus showed me the harsh reality for many children affected by the Chernobyl disaster but it also let me see the hope that Irish people have brought to their lives, writes Cliódhna Russel
CHILDREN ROCKING BACK and forth for hours on end, hitting their heads against walls, grinding their teeth, scraping their faces and putting their hands down their throats.
Some of the children’s teeth were in very bad condition and they were offered very little love, affection – or indeed care – by many of the nurses minding them.
This is what I witnessed when I volunteered at Vesnova Children’s Mental Asylum in Belarus last month.
I was expecting children with physical and learning disabilities. I was expecting to see the physical effects that the Chernobyl disaster has caused.
I wasn’t expecting to see children treated as if they weren’t human or didn’t count.
I wasn’t expecting to hear about the adult institutions where people are beaten and abused.

Disaster
The Chernobyl disaster happened in 1986 when an explosion and fire at a nuclear plant released large amounts of radioactive particles.
A new UN Report now states that Chernobyl released over 400 times (and not 100 times as originally quoted) the amount of radiation that was released in the Hiroshima bombing.
Children born in Belarus since 1986 are affected by a 200 per cent increase in birth defects and a 250 per cent increase in congenital birth deformities.
Walking around the asylum, it was pointed out to me that the trees have also been contaminated. What I thought were nests, were actually radioactive growths.
Founder of the Chernobyl children international charity, Adi Roche said,
Radiation knows no territorial boundaries, it doesn’t apply for an entry or an exit visa, it travels wherever the winds take it. At 1.23 am on 26 April 1986 a silent war was declared against the innocent peoples of Belarus, Western Russia and Northern Ukraine. A war in which they could not see the enemy, a war in which they could send no standing army, a war in which there was no weapon, no antidote, no safe haven, no emergency exit. Why? Because the enemy was invisible, the enemy was radiation.
Reality of life
There were about 160 children aged between four and 20 years old at the orphanage that I was in.
The children have beds, they are fed and are changed but that’s where their care ends.
I saw a child being fed a full bowl of what I can only describe as slop in 46 seconds.
It took myself and those who travelled with me at least 10 minutes to feed a child. In one case, I saw the child lie down and the food was literally poured into his mouth.
That was the case for the children who couldn’t feed themselves due to physical disability.
The children who could were brought into a large cafeteria – where the sight of them gulping down food as quickly as they could was actually horrifying.
Adi Roche was with us on the trip and she lined up our group so we could witness the speed at which these children ate.
It was clear by looking at them that food wasn’t something they enjoyed, it was just another part of their day were they had to fight to survive.
At one stage, I saw an older girl move towards an extra piece of fish that was on a plate a few tables away. She got up from her seat and made a run for it with a spoon in her hand. A nurse ran after her and the girl began shaking badly, she dropped the plate in the panic and the food fell to the floor.
She then got on her hands and knees and began eating from the ground.
Attitude
The orphanage itself is in good condition and is kept extremely clean. There’s even a sensory room where lighting and music and exercise toys can be used to relax the children.
This was one of the most rewarding parts of the trip; I would walk into a unit (there were eight units in the asylum) and pick a child, feeling awful that I couldn’t attend to every one and I’d bring that child into the sensory room and spend as long as I could giving them my full attention.
One little boy, Zgorik, who spent his days with his fingers in his ears and rocking his body at speed relaxed so much he started singing.
To see a child enjoy himself like this, even for just a few minutes, means so much when you consider that he never gets hugged or held or any affection until the next group of volunteers come in.
CHILDREN ROCKING BACK and forth for hours on end, hitting their heads against walls, grinding their teeth, scraping their faces and putting their hands down their throats.Some of the children’s teeth were in very bad condition and they were offered very little love, affection – or indeed care – by many of the nurses minding them.
This is what I witnessed when I volunteered at Vesnova Children’s Mental Asylum in Belarus last month.
I was expecting children with physical and learning disabilities. I was expecting to see the physical effects that the Chernobyl disaster has caused.
I wasn’t expecting to see children treated as if they weren’t human or didn’t count.
I wasn’t expecting to hear about the adult institutions where people are beaten and abused.
Disaster
The Chernobyl disaster happened in 1986 when an explosion and fire at a nuclear plant released large amounts of radioactive particles.
A new UN Report now states that Chernobyl released over 400 times (and not 100 times as originally quoted) the amount of radiation that was released in the Hiroshima bombing.
Children born in Belarus since 1986 are affected by a 200 per cent increase in birth defects and a 250 per cent increase in congenital birth deformities.
Walking around the asylum, it was pointed out to me that the trees have also been contaminated. What I thought were nests, were actually radioactive growths.

Continue reading →

April 20, 2014 Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jonathan Steele – Ukraine Whats Behind the Crisis? Belarus next?

Fourman Films Published on 18 Apr 2014
A core part of the Bank’s mandate in Belarus is to increase competition and promote the growth of the private sector.
Therefore, it is fitting that the Bank’s first investment in the fuel sector in Belarus was a long-term loan of US$ 10 million to A-100 Group, a medium-sized, privately-owned chain of Belarus petrol stations. The project will help A-100 to increase its share of the country’s fuel distribution market and challenge the state-owned and Russian energy majors that dominate the sector. http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/factsheets/belarus.pdf The EBRD and Belarus The current political, economic and structural reform environment in Belarus warrants the continued application of a calibrated strategic approach, incorporating both political and economic benchmarks to gauge the country’s progress or regress against its key Article 1 commitments and adjusting the Bank’s operational response accordingly. In keeping with the calibrated strategic approach, the Bank’s overall engagement in Belarus will continue to be modulated to reflect the country’s progress against annually updated political and economic benchmarks. In light of recent political and economic developments, while continuing its policy of constructive engagement to promote reform, the Bank will further calibrate its engagement in Belarus to limit its involvement with state-owned enterprises in the areas of trade finance, energy efficiency credit lines and private equity funds.

Last updated 13 March 2013

http://www.ebrd.com/pages/country/belarus/strategy.shtml http://www.ebrd.com/pages/country/belarus.shtml
UKRAINE
The Bank continued supporting the Ukrainian banking sector. Under the conditions of limited access to international financial markets, EBRD client-banks made active use of the Trade Facilitation Programme, which recorded exceptionally high volumes. A large energy efficiency lending facility of US$ 50 million was signed with UkrEximBank. The EBRD also participated in the capital increase of Ukrsibbank (BNP Paribas Group).
Finally, a major step towards overcoming the legacy of the Chernobyl accident and ensuring long-term safety at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was achieved in 2012 with the successful completion of the first lifting stage of
the New Safe Confinement. This project is implemented under the financial supervision and the support of the EBRD

http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/factsheets/ukraine.pdf

Address of EBRD
Contacts
EBRD Ukraine office
16, Nemirovicha-Danchenko Street
01133 Kiev
Ukraine

Fax: +380 44 277 11 60
Email: kiev@kev.ebrd.com
Director, Ukraine: André Küüsvek

Turkey, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
Managing Director: Olivier Descamps
(based in London)

EBRD Headquarters
One Exchange Square
London EC2A 2JN
United Kingdom
EBRD Belarus office
34A Engelsa Street, building 2
220030 Minsk
Belarus
Head of Office: Francis Delaey
The Caucasus, Moldova and Belarus

Director: Bruno Balvanera, as of 1 June 2013
(Tbilisi office)

A-100 enters into the 100 most expensive Byelorussian brands

MPP Consulting Agency (Ukraine) conducted an assessment of the Belarusian brands. The main aim of that research was the identification of one hundred most famous and valuable brands in our country. It is rating of brands created exclusively in the territory of Belarus, only Belarusian goods and services. MPP Consulting examined all industries.

During the research, evaluation of national brands «TOP National Brands» and rating “BelBrend 2011 — TOP 100 Belarusian brands,” Company A-100 took 90th in the overall ranking and first in its industry. Brand value has been estimated at 1.75 million dollars.

And the first line this year is a brand of “Santa Bremor”, valued at $ 72.5 million

The main objective of “BelBrend 2011” was to determine the 100 most valuable brands in Belarus, as well as their current market value, based on the performance of companies that use these brands, the positions of each company in the market and perspectives for their development.

The main feature of the methodology for assessing agency MPP Consulting is that the brand value includes only the cost of the brand-name, without regard to production capacity, infrastructure, patents, inventions and other tangible or intellectual property.

More information about the ranking Belarusian brands is here — http://mppconsulting.com.ua/ukrbrand/belbrand2011.html

April 19, 2014 Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nukes, coups and referenda: myth and reality in the Ukraine crisis

The western powers are in no position to lecture Putin, whose actions in Crimea look like a Gandhian direct action when compared to the normal US-UK mode of operation. From 28 February to 18 March, Russian forces captured over a dozen Ukrainian bases or military posts without the loss of a single life.
[…]
NATO is a machine for facilitating or imposing western domination on the rest of the world. Dismantling it would be a valuable step towards a more peaceful world, and a valuable de-escalatory move in the current crisis.

[…]

April 2014 | Issue 2568-2569

In this wide-ranging essay (a greatly extended version of the editorial in the current print edition), PN co-editor Milan Rai analyses Ukraine, western hypocrisy, the role (not) played by nuclear weapons in the ongoing crisis, claims that the US organised a “fascist coup” in Ukraine, the “referendum” in Crimea, and the path away from war.

Comment by Milan Rai
http://peacenews.info/node/7651

Nuclear promises

It is difficult to see the Crimea crisis clearly through the choking fog of western hypocrisy that surrounds it. Before trying to do so, there is one factor that we should deal with straightforwardly. When Ukraine became independent (after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991), it inherited 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads, more nuclear weapons than China, France and Britain held – combined.

If, instead of repatriating these weapons to Russia in the mid-1990s, Ukraine held those weapons today, it is extremely unlikely that Russia would have invaded the Crimea. This may be an uncomfortable truth, but we think it must be faced by those who want to advance nonviolence.

If we want to persuade smaller nations to remain free of nuclear weapons, as we should, as they should, we have to have answers to the questions that arise.

Ukraine gave up its weapons in return for a promise that its territorial integrity would be protected by the USA, Russia and the UK, under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. This agreement has manifestly not been honoured by ANY of the parties.

Strictly speaking, as Steven Pifer, former US ambassador to Ukraine, points out, the Budapest Memorandum ‘bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine already held from the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, United Nations Charter and Non-Proliferation Treaty’. Pifer observes: ‘The Ukrainian government nevertheless found it politically valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.’

The specific ‘security assurance’ given in the memorandum (not a treaty) was that ‘if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used’ (emphasis added), Russia, the UK and/or the US would take steps.

Well, actually, just one step. The one action specified, in the case of a nuclear weapons-related security issue, was that they would ‘seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’.

In any non-nuclear-weapon-related situation, Russia, Britain and the US promised only to ‘consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments’.

The US and Britain have lived up to the words of the Budapest Memorandum (calling a ‘consultation’ meeting on 5 March which Russia refused to attend), while violating its spirit.

Former foreign minister of Australia Gareth Evans has argued that nuclear weapons would not have prevented the Russian invasion of Crimea: ‘weapons that would be manifestly suicidal to use are not ultimately a very credible deterrent’. In his view, Russian president Vladimir Putin would have known that Ukraine would not ‘nuke Moscow for sending tanks into Crimea, or even Dnipropetrovsk’. Yet at the same time, Evans himself points out that Ukraine’s possession of nuclear weapons would have added ‘another huge layer of potential hazard, owing to the risk of stumbling into a catastrophe through accident, miscalculation, system error, or sabotage.’

Evans is absolutely right to stress the terrifying risks and instability of ‘nuclear deterrence’, but it does no good for us advocates of disarmament to deny that invading a country that possesses nuclear weapons is a frightening prospect that no rational leadership would undertake.

This simple truth does not justify the possession of nuclear weapons, which remain immoral and illegal and dangerous to the survival of civilisation, if not humanity as a species.

An equally simple truth is that if Ukraine had retained its nuclear weapons in 1991, it might not have been invaded by Russia in 2014, because there is a good chance that in the intervening years an accidental or mistaken nuclear launch would have led to the devastation of both nations, along with neighbouring countries.

Setting Crimea in context

On 2 March, US secretary of state John Kerry reacted to the Russian invasion of Crimea by saying: ‘You just don’t in the 21^st century behave in 19^th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.’

Since Vladimir Putin’s first ascendancy to the Russian presidency in 2000, the Russian state has used its armed forces against other countries twice: against Georgia, in 2008; and now against Ukraine.

In the same time period, Britain has used its military forces without UN authorisation against four countries: Sierra Leone (2000), Afghanistan (2001-present); Iraq (2003-2008, officially); and Libya (2011). (In Libya, there was a UN-approved ‘no-fly zone’, but NATO forces exceeded this mandate). During these same years, France has attacked several African countries, some repeatedly, including: Côte d’Ivoire (2002, 2004, 2011); Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) (2003); Chad (2006, 2008); Libya (2011); Mali (2013); Somalia (2013); Central African Republic (2006, 2013-present).

The US has used its armed forces in a criminal fashion against a number of countries, including: Afghanistan (2001-present); Yemen (drone attacks, 2002-present); Iraq (2003-present); Pakistan (drone attacks, 2004-present); Libya (2011); Somalia (2011-present).

Some of these attacks may be classed as state terrorism, many amount to the crime of aggression.

The modern classic example of a ‘trumped-up pretext’ is, of course, the weapons of mass destruction alleged to exist in Iraq in 2003.

The 19th century is not over for these leaders of the free world.

Continue reading →

April 19, 2014 Posted by arclight2011part2 | Uncategorized | Leave a comment