Nuclear energy development not possible in USA, unless it is tax-payer funded?
What Is Holding U.S. Nuclear Energy Back? OilPrice.com 21 Mar 22,
”……….There are three basic business risks associated with nuclear power for an investor-owned utility: financing, operating, and sales. (Four if you add in new construction risk which is not inconsequential.) The simple reason no US investor-owned utility — apart from Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle—- is building or considering new nuclear investments is the first risk, financing. To paraphrase a former NYC mayoral candidate, the capital costs are “too damn high”. By any metric, nuclear power is economically uncompetitive. According to the recent Lazard study comparing the cost of new power generation, it is about three times more costly than natural gas and five times more costly than new wind and solar.
This begs an obvious question. How can we have more of something if it is wildly, economically uncompetitive? The answer is simple: eliminate the consideration of economics from new power plant development. Take for example a large nuclear construction project at Turkey’s four-unit Akuyu nuclear power station. In the US that is a $40+billion capital project. No US investor-owned utility has the balance sheet to handle multiple unit projects of that size. Only the US government has the borrowing capacity for projects of that magnitude and risk. This, in turn, suggests that new nuclear power plant development will only occur in the US If we compromise on our free enterprise principles and take new nuclear plant development out of the private sector entirely. These enormous financing risks are now impossible to comfortably absorb in a corporate setting where they must be constantly balanced against shareholder interests. ….’
UK’s Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng considering launching State-owned nuclear company
Government ministers are mulling over plans to launch a state-owned
nuclear company, which would assume stakes in future domestic projects.
Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is considering the move as he looks to
speed up the development of nuclear plants – which have suffered years of
delays- and reduce the UK’s reliance on foreign energy, according to The
Sunday Times.
City AM 20th March 2022
Boris Johnson all for nuclear power – but there are tensions with the Treasury about this
Boris Johnson will host a meeting with leaders from the nuclear power
industry today as part of efforts to boost domestic energy supplies. The
prime minister wants to remove the barriers to the raising of Britain’s
nuclear power output and sees the industry, along with renewables, as key
to reducing energy imports.
Today’s meeting with nuclear industry bosses
will inform the prime minister’s British Energy Security Strategy, which
has been hit by delays. It is unlikely to be unveiled until early next week
because of tensions with the Treasury and the prime minister’s travel
arrangements, which include a trip this week to a Nato summit in Brussels.
A government source said that the Treasury had delayed Johnson’s plans
for a significant increase in the number of nuclear power plants out of
concern about the feasibility and cost.
Times 21st March 2022
Boris Johnson ‘gung ho’ for new nuclear power, but Chancellor Rishi Sunak applying the brakes
Boris Johnson in ‘gung ho’ push for more nuclear power as energy
crisis starts to bite. Boris Johnson will on Monday sketch out to industry
bosses what one minister called his “gung ho” approach to boosting
Britain’s nuclear power sector, as officials draw up plans that could
target a fivefold increase in capacity by 2050.
The prime minister vowed
this month to make “a series of big new bets on nuclear power” and
government insiders say this could imply the construction of at least half
a dozen big new stations between 2030 and 2050.
Rishi Sunak, chancellor,
last week applied the brakes to Johnson’s plans to set out an energy
security strategy this week, amid Treasury fears about the cost to the
public purse. New nuclear power stations each require close to £ 20bn to
build and the industry is prone to cost overruns.
Sunak, who presents his
Spring Statement this week, is trying to hold down spending to give him
space to cut taxes. “We need to do more work on the nuclear strategy
before we press ahead,” said one ally of the chancellor. But one cabinet
minister said: “Boris has had something of an evangelical conversion, in
the past few months – he has been really gung-ho for nuclear.” The
energy strategy is due before the end of the month.
FT 20th March 2022
https://www.ft.com/content/17852c7c-fd92-40cb-b4ec-9767c6069677
Evangelical fervour for new nuclear power in UK’s Tory government
Wylfa on Anglesey could get three new nuclear reactors as the Prime
Minister is said to be ‘enthusiastic’ about accelerating plans in order
to reach the UK’s future net-zero targets and close an energy black hole.
US nuclear company Westinghouse has put together a consortium with
construction group Bechtel to revive plans for two nuclear reactors at
Wylfa since Hitachi, a Japanese conglomerate, abandoned their own plans in
2019.
A consortium led by Rolls-Royce also wants to place one of their own
‘small’ modular reactors on the site. According to the Financial Times,
Boris Johnson is “enthusiastic about Wylfa’s prospects,” with one
cabinet minister telling the newspaper he “has had something of an
evangelical conversion, in the past few months”.
Ynys Môn MP Virginia
Crosbie has also been enthusiastic about the plans, describing herself in
the House of Commons as “the Atomic Kitten”. However, Chancellor Rishi
Sunak is said to be less enthusiastic given the cost to the taxpayer of
financing such huge projects that would not be operational for decades,
with a target of meeting the UK Government’s ‘net zero’ goal by 2050.
Nation Cymru 21st March 2022 https://nation.cymru/news/wylfa-could-get-three-new-nuclear-reactors-as-boris-johnson-enthusiastic-about-accelerating-plans/
Boris Johnson in the grip of the nuclear lobby
Prime minister Boris Johnson is expected this week to meet the bosses of
leading power and energy development companies to discuss ways of
increasing Britain’s electricity and gas supplies.
Officials from EDF, developer of the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power plant, are expected to
be invited to the talks. Rolls-Royce and nuclear company Westinghouse are
also understood to have been invited. EDF and Sizewell C declined to
comment.
But Stop Sizewell C said the Suffolk power project was not the
solution to the energy crisis as it stepped up its campaign again at the
weekend by projecting messages onto Sizewell B on Saturday night.
East Anglian Daily Times 20th March 2022
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/business/sizewell-projections-message-on-nuclear-power-8768518
The energy crisis is now, new nuclear will be (at least) twenty years too late – UK’s Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA)
The energy crisis is now, new nuclear will be (at least) twenty years too late
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities were dismayed to hear that the door of Number 10 will today once more be held open for guests from the nuclear power industry as Prime Minister Boris Johnson hosts a roundtable with prospective commercial partners, ahead of a new energy statement later this week.
Following Johnson’s proclamation that he will look to ‘place big new bets on nuclear’ and with one cabinet member allegedly describing the Prime Minister as ‘really gung ho for nuclear’, the participants are likely to meet with a firm ally. Government resolve will also be bolstered by the publication last week by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy of a ‘roadmap’ to make sites, money and a pared-down regulatory environment available to the nuclear industry to enable the development of a further 15 Gigawatts of new nuclear generating capacity by 2035 and 30 GW by 2050.
The NFLA believes that this hyperbole ignores the reality that any new nuclear projects will take too long, cost too much and have too many uncertainties to provide a meaningful solution to the energy and climate crisis that Britain faces now.
“Despite the need to generate ‘more electricity more greenly’ now, the Prime Minister seems determined to ignore the obvious solution that would result from a far greater and more urgent investment in renewable technologies and is instead taking us once more along the increasingly well-trodden and costly road to no-where that is new nuclear”, said Councillor David Blackburn, Chair of the NFLA, in response to the news.
“Every pound spent on nuclear is a pound denied to renewables. New nuclear has a lamentable history of being delivered at far greater cost and far more slowly than was at first predicted. New nuclear plants take decades to deliver with Hinkley Point C currently estimated to cost at least £23 billion. Renewables have been proven to deliver electricity far more cheaply, far more quickly and far more safely than new nuclear ever can – and renewable energy comes without the additional eye-watering cost of decommissioning nuclear plants and managing the legacy of radioactive waste for millennia that comes with it.”
The NFLA would like the government to change tack and look to harness natural energy sources to generate power to meet our needs, whilst saving our environment.
“The irony is that we already have the solutions to our energy and climate crisis to hand. When you live in a country that is surrounded by seas and has unpredictable weather it is surely a far safer bet to invest in tidal energy, hydro power, solar panels and wind turbines to draw energy from Mother Nature. The NFLA believes this, combined with investment in innovative energy storage solutions and in retrofitting our cold and draughty homes to a far higher standard to reduce energy use, could meet Britain’s energy needs, reduce fuel bills, and safeguard our planet in the here-and-now, not the never-never.”
Ends//…For more information please contact Richard Outram, Secretary, NFLA Email Richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk / Mobile 07583 097793
Water supply problems for planned £20billion twin reactor on the Suffolk coast
Sizewell C developer EDF is being asked by government whether a temporary
desalination plant could last for the lifetime of the new nuclear power
plant if it is built. The public examination of the plans for the
£20billion twin reactor on the Suffolk coast was told a permanent water
supply for the proposed development had not yet been secured. However, a
temporary desalination plant would run during the construction of the
project.
Kwasi Kwarteng, secretary of state at the Department of Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy, is now asking EDF what progress has been
made on securing a permanent water supply solution. But he also says: “The
applicant should confirm if it would be possible for the proposed temporary
desalination plant to permanently meet the full water supply demand for the
lifetime of the proposed development should no alternative water supply
solution be identified.”
East Anglian Daily Times 20th March 2022
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/business/water-supply-sizewellc-questioned-by-government-8768432
Greenpeace: Nuclear power is not the solution to Philippines’ energy woes
Greenpeace: Nuclear power is not the solution to PH’s energy woes, https://opinion.inquirer.net/151278/greenpeace-nuclear-power-is-not-the-solution-to-phs-energy-woes
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 04:05 AM March 22, 2022
We are writing to respond to Solita Monsod’s two recent columns on nuclear power and the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). We believe these columns glossed over several important facts that the nuclear industry also wants to hide from the public eye.
First, nuclear power is not cheap. Costs for radioactive nuclear waste management and storage, decommissioning, and insurance, need to be factored in. Monsod compares nuclear prices to coal and oil, but recent reports by the International Energy Agency and the International Renewable Energy Agency have already confirmed that renewable energy (RE), primarily from solar and wind, is now the cheapest source of electricity by far. Rehabilitating the BNPP won’t be cheap either. Monsod makes a price comparison with new nuclear plants (which are prohibitively expensive) but neglects to make a comparison with RE, whose capital costs are a lot less than that of upgrading the BNPP.
We are writing to respond to Solita Monsod’s two recent columns on nuclear power and the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). We believe these columns glossed over several important facts that the nuclear industry also wants to hide from the public eye.
First, nuclear power is not cheap. Costs for radioactive nuclear waste management and storage, decommissioning, and insurance, need to be factored in. Monsod compares nuclear prices to coal and oil, but recent reports by the International Energy Agency and the International Renewable Energy Agency have already confirmed that renewable energy (RE), primarily from solar and wind, is now the cheapest source of electricity by far. Rehabilitating the BNPP won’t be cheap either. Monsod makes a price comparison with new nuclear plants (which are prohibitively expensive) but neglects to make a comparison with RE, whose capital costs are a lot less than that of upgrading the BNPP.
There are also hidden costs, such as the costs to health and livelihoods of communities living in the vicinity of these plants, as well as the costs all Filipinos will pay to maintain a regulatory agency. But the biggest hidden cost is the price of a nuclear accident. This cost runs in the trillions of pesos and will affect generations of Filipinos. Neither the nuclear industry nor the government has mentioned anything about how these costs will be paid for should this happen.
Second, nuclear power will not solve our power woes or give us energy security. We still need to import radioactive fuel, so we will be hostage to the price volatility of this commodity. Nuclear proponents also never mention that fuel production is almost a monopoly, dominated by only four companies. This arrangement will lock us into dependence on foreign fuel and companies, where any shortage or increase in demand globally would mean Filipinos will be faced with rising energy costs that the government can’t control.
Third, the BNPP has not been confirmed by any independent study to be safe for operation, and “small modular nuclear reactors” for power generation don’t exist. All the studies so far conducted that have called the BNPP “safe” were undertaken by bodies connected with the industry, and therefore would not be subjective in their assessment. On the other hand, a safety inquiry conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found more than 4,000 technical defects in the plant. Meanwhile, small modular reactors being promoted by nuclear companies or agencies of Russia and the US are still currently being studied. Should the Philippines take this route, we will be among the first guinea pigs of this human experiment.
Fourth, we’ve never heard anything about permanent storage for radioactive spent fuel from nuclear promoters. The cost for constructing and maintaining this facility will likely be in the trillions of pesos, to be paid for by all Filipinos, not just nuclear power customers. But will the government find a safe place for this deadly waste in the archipelagic and volcanic Philippines? And will there be a local government unit that would willingly accept it? The problem of dealing with nuclear waste is the toxic burden we will leave today’s youth and their children, for them to additionally deal with, alongside climate impacts.
The debt we incurred because of BNPP was gargantuan. It was unfortunate that we paid for what was, in reality, the price of bad energy planning railroaded by a government that was blinded by the false glitter of nuclear power—and the kickbacks an expensive power project would bring. Will we let history repeat itself?
Monsod’s hinayang is for the past—sayang the money we paid for it, she says. It’s true we can’t get it back. But we can prevent Flipinos from bearing the same oppressive burden again. We have the opportunity to harness the cheapest power sources in the world—RE in the form of solar and wind—and redesign our energy system into flexible decentralized grids that are infinitely more efficient than the outdated centralized models reliant on inflexible baseload plants, such as nuclear. This kind of energy planning is smart, and game-changing, and is the real solution to the climate crisis. Mas malaking hinayang if we don’t take this opportunity to transform our energy system now, and create a better energy future for ourselves.
Khevin Yu,
energy transition campaigner
Greenpeace Philippines
Zelensky bans 11 political parties, although no evidence linking any to Russian government
Zelensky Announces Ban on 11 Political Parties–At the onset of the Feb. 24 invasion, Zelensky signed a measure that established martial law and general mobilization. | 20 March 2022 | Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a measure that bans 11 opposition political parties, alleging they have ties to Russia, he announced in a Telegram video posted on March 20. Zelensky also said “wartime exposes quite well the paucity of personal ambitions of those who try to put their own ambitions” or “their own party or career above the interests of the state,” according to a translation. The National Security Council agreed to suspend the parties, Ukrinform reported, citing Zelensky’s video address. The Ukrainian Ministry of Justice has been told to immediately take measures to ban those political parties, he said. Zelensky didn’t provide evidence that linked the 11 opposition parties to the Russian government.
‘Let them kill as many as possible’ The Roots of US Militarism in Russia and Around the World
“This time, is the primary goal of the paramilitary program to help Ukrainians liberate their country or to weaken Russia over the course of a long insurgency that will undoubtedly cost as many Ukrainian lives as Russian lives, if not more?”
What the people of Ukraine are suffering from Russian aggression is suffered daily by millions around the world from U.S. aggression.
Common Dreams, BRIAN TERRELL, March 4, 2022 In April 1941, four years before he was to become President and eight months before the United States entered World War II, Senator Harry Truman of Missouri reacted to the news that Germany had invaded the Soviet Union: “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.” Truman was not called out as a cynic when he spoke these words from the floor of the Senate. On the contrary, when he died in 1972, Truman’s obituary in The New York Times cited this statement as establishing his “reputation for decisiveness and courage.”
“This basic attitude,” gushed The Times, “prepared him to adopt from the start of his Presidency, a firm policy,” an attitude that prepared him to order the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with “no qualms.” Truman’s same basic “let them kill as many as possible” attitude also informed the postwar doctrine that bears his name, along with the establishment of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, both of which he is credited with founding.
A February 25 op-ed in The Los Angeles Times by Jeff Rogg, “The CIA has backed Ukrainian insurgents before- Let’s learn from those mistakes,” cites a CIA program to train Ukrainian nationalists as insurgents to fight the Russians that began in 2015 and compares it with a similar effort by Truman’s CIA in Ukraine that began in 1949. By 1950, one year in, “U.S. officers involved in the program knew they were fighting a losing battle…In the first U.S.-backed insurgency, according to top secret documents later declassified, American officials intended to use the Ukrainians as a proxy force to bleed the Soviet Union.” This op-ed cites John Ranelagh, a historian of the CIA, who argued that the program “demonstrated a cold ruthlessness” because the Ukrainian resistance had no hope of success, and so “America was in effect encouraging Ukrainians to go to their deaths.
The “Truman Doctrine” of arming and training insurgents as proxy forces to bleed Russia to the peril of the local populations that it was purporting to defend was used effectively in Afghanistan in the 1970s and ’80s, a program so effective, some of its authors have boasted, that it helped bring down the Soviet Union a decade later. In a 1998 interview, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski explained, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujaheddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.”
“The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border,” Brzezinski recalled, “I wrote to President Carter, essentially: ‘We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.’ Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.”
…………………….. In his LA Times op-ed, Rogg calls the 1949 CIA program in Ukraine a “mistake” and asks the question, “This time, is the primary goal of the paramilitary program to help Ukrainians liberate their country or to weaken Russia over the course of a long insurgency that will undoubtedly cost as many Ukrainian lives as Russian lives, if not more?” Viewed in light of United States foreign policy from Truman to Biden, the early cold war debacle in Ukraine might better be described as a crime than a mistake and Rogg’s question seems rhetorical.
………………… Globally, through its armed forces but even more through the CIA and the so-called National Endowment for Democracy, through NATO muscle masquerading as mutual “defense,” in Europe as in Asia, as in Africa, as in the Middle East, as in Latin America, the United States exploits and dishonors the very real aspirations of good people for peace and self-determination. At the same time, it feeds the swamp where violent extremisms like the Taliban in Afghanistan, ISIS in Syria and Iraq and neo-Nazi nationalism in Ukraine can only fester and flourish and spread. …………………………………………… https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/03/04/let-them-kill-many-possible-roots-us-militarism-russia-and-around-world
Canada’s green bond program specifically prohibits investments in nuclear energy
Is nuclear energy green or not? Federal government sending conflicting messages, critics say
At the same time the government invests in small modular nuclear reactor projects, its new planned green bond program specifically prohibits investments in nuclear energy
Excerpt from the National Post, Mar 18, 2022 •The Liberal government is being accused of sending conflicting messages about the nuclear industry and how it can help adapt to a green environment.
The week the Liberal government put $27.2 million into a promising new small modular nuclear reactor — but at the same time its green bond program, meant to boost environmentally-friendly programs, specifically excludes investments in nuclear power.
The conflict shows mixed support at best for the industry, say critics………….
The green bond program was announced in last spring’s budget and detailed rules were released earlier this month. The green bonds would be part of Canada’s broader debt program, but the money would be specifically diverted to environmentally-friendly programs, such as climate change adaptation measures, other forms of renewable energy, and energy efficiency……….
Adrienne Vaupshas, a spokesperson for Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, said Canada’s green bonds were following international standards.
“Canada’s green bond framework is fully aligned with international green bond standards and market expectations,” she said….
UK’s Nuclear All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) condemned for calling on govt to reclassify nuclear energy as ‘green’
CND condemns Westminster nuclear group’s call for nuclear energy to be re-classified as ‘green’ https://cnduk.org/cnd-criticises-westminster-nuclear-groups-call-for-nuclear-energy-to-be-re-classified-as-green/?fbclid=IwAR3H1WnXXIVuZY0u8smeKP097HzFohe3_Xgonazrwhe1X6sldhOzfhX12T0CND has condemned MPs and Peers from the Nuclear All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for calling on the UK government to reclassify nuclear energy as ‘green’ so it can avail of the Green Finance Initiative.
The informal cross-party group included the demand as part of a five-point plan published this week, after Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced “big new bets on nuclear” as part of efforts to cut reliance on gas and oil imports from Russia .
The APPG is also urging that the government sets out key targets for nuclear energy ambitions such as 15GW of power generated by 2035, and at least 30GW generated by 2050, as well as fast-tracked decisions on both large-scale nuclear plants and small modular reactors (SMRs).
In addition to opening up nuclear energy to green financing, the group wants unused former nuclear sites to be made available for further nuclear development.
CND has long-pointed out that genuinely sustainable alternatives to nuclear power exist in renewable energy sources and calls on the government to invest in these technologies rather than diverting billions of pounds into subsidising the nuclear industry. By doing so, we could secure enough clean energy sources while creating thousands of new jobs
CND Vice-President and nuclear energy expert, Dr Ian Fairlie, said the APPG’s proposals for a nuclear bonanza were ill-considered: “The idea that nuclear power, in any shape or form, was a ‘green technology’ was absurd. Nuclear wastes last for millennia and the government has nothing but hazy ideas and paper plans for its nuclear waste, so these proposals for yet more nuclear power make rational people shake their heads in disbelief. In our view, nuclear power with all its problems is not just unsustainable, it is a veritable insult to any notion of sustainability. It is for this reason that several EU Member States have objected to current proposals to make nuclear power eligible under the EU’s Green Financing Framework.”
Push for UK govt to call nuclear power ”green”, so that nuclear industry can get money from theGreen Financing Framework.
Westminster’s Nuclear All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) has published
a roadmap that calls for 15GW of new nuclear generation by 2035 and 30GW by
2050. In light of the current energy crisis and comments from the prime
minister earlier this week about ‘big new bets on nuclear power’, the
Nuclear APPG set out a five-point plan that urges commitment to both
large-scale plants as well as small modular reactors (SMRs).
Alongside the 15GW and 30GW ambitions, the plan also includes reclassifying nuclear as
green energy to make it eligible under the Green Financing Framework,
accelerating decisions and funding on Sizewell C and SMRs, freeing up
unused nuclear sites for prospective developers, and streamlining the
development and planning processes.
The Engineer 17th March 2022
Silence in the media and Labour “left” on Assange’s extradition danger
Silence in the media and Labour “left” on Assange’s extradition danger, WSWS, 16 Mar 22,
Thomas Scripp, Julian Assange was shunted a step closer to his would-be executioners on Monday. The UK Supreme Court issued a one-line decision refusing to hear the WikiLeaks founder’s appeal against an earlier decision ordering his extradition to the United States.
The case will now be returned to the original court as a formality before being passed to the home secretary, Priti Patel, to give the final order. Once Patel receives the case, Assange could be on a plane to the US in just four weeks’ time, except for inevitable further appeals.The Biden administration intends to prosecute Assange for charges under the Espionage Act with a potential sentence of 175 years in prison. This would be served in barbaric conditions that previous judgements acknowledged could drive him to suicide. His health has already been destroyed by years of incarceration in Britain’s maximum security Belmarsh prison.
Despite the immense danger faced by the most significant journalist of the 21st century, many major newspapers did not cover the Supreme Court decision. Those that did ran entirely perfunctory stories, largely without comment.Britain’s leading liberal newspaper, the Guardian, did not write a single critical line in its cursory 350-word article, quoting just two sentences from his legal team. The US New York Times managed, “If Mr. Assange were extradited to the United States and faced a trial, the case could raise profound First Amendment issues. His prosecution has alarmed advocates of press freedom.”
These are publications which have spent the last weeks screaming about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s censorship and attacks on free speech and journalistic freedoms. When speaking out about democratic rights lines up with imperialist war aims, they are fervent advocates. In the case of Assange, who exposed the systematic crimes of US and British imperialism, the “democratic principles” they so fiercely defend in Russia whither on the vine.
The NATO-Russia war over Ukraine has not only accelerated Assange’s persecution, but intensified his long and deliberate isolation by the corporate media.
At a briefing with the Foreign Press Association last month, to introduce his new book The Trial of Julian Assange: A Story of Persecution, UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer accused the mainstream media of failing in their duty as the “fourth estate” to hold governments to account. Melzer’s book is based on his three years of efforts to end the illegal mistreatment of the WikiLeaks founder.
In it, he criticises the “too little, too late”, “tame and lame” reporting of the British, American and American press, exposing their cynical pseudo-support for Assange:“A handful of half-hearted opinion pieces in the Guardian and the New York Times rejecting Assange’s extradition are not bold enough, and so fail to convince. While both papers have timidly declared that convicting Assange of espionage would endanger press freedom, not a single mainstream media outlet protests the blatant violations of due process, human dignity and the rule of law that pervade the entire trial. None holds the involved governments to account for their crimes and corruption; none has the courage to confront political leaders with uncomfortable questions; none feels dutybound to inform and empower the people—a mere shadow of what was once the ‘fourth estate’.”
Amid the war frenzy and the need to present Britain and the US as champions of global democracy, even the days of the half-hearted opinion piece are over.
Melzer’s point extends far beyond the media. The UN rapporteur is one of just a handful of prominent public figures in any sphere with an honourable record on Assange. At his FPA event, he described his inability to seek redress “through the diplomatic channels at my disposal, or by alerting the General Assembly [of the UN] or the Human Rights Council in Geneva,” describing Assange as “the untouchable case,” kept behind a “wall of silence”.
Among the more significant silences is kept by the British “left”.
In July 2020, only 26 MPs could bring themselves to sign an early day motion, “Julian Assange, press freedom and public-interest journalism”, which asserted, “That this House notes the July 2020 statement by the National Union of Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders and others in relation to the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and affirms its commitment to press freedom and public-interest journalism.”
Among the signatories were 16 Labour MPs, including now former party leader Jeremy Corbyn and several of his shadow front benchers: John McDonnell, Diane Abbott, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Ian Lavery and Clive Lewis.
Of this rump, only one, Claudia Webbe, has spoken on Assange since the Supreme Court decision. Webbe is no longer a Labour MP, having been expelled from the party after a criminal harassment conviction. She tweeted simply, “Julian Assange should be free”……………………. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/16/assa-m16.html?pk_campaign=assange-newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (317)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 