|
Is a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the table? https://www.livemint.com/news/india/is-a-pre-emptive-nuclear-strike-on-the-table-1550771055043.html 21 Feb 2019, Arjun SrinivasIndia has had a long-standing policy of nuclear restraint and is believed to pursue a no first use policy
Any escalation of tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours can have massive implications for both South Asian and global security. There has been a considerable escalation of tension between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the Pulwama attack. While the outbreak of a full-fledged conflict is no more than a distant possibility, a paper by Christopher Clary and Vipin Narang, published in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s journal International Security, considers the likelihood of a pre-emptive nuclear strike by India in response to Pakistan’s continued aggression as a ‘counterforce’ strategy.
India has had a long-standing policy of nuclear restraint and is believed to pursue a no first use policy. However, the authors suggest that, since 2003, India has devoted considerable resources to develop nuclear capabilities far in excess of what is required for mere retaliation. In addition to these enhanced capabilities, there has been a host of public comment from both serving and retired Indian national security officials about the possibilities and strategic importance of a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
These strikes, the authors argue, could potentially limit the capabilities of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
However, this shift in policy, or even a perceived shift, would carry major risks. It could potentially lead to an arms race in the subcontinent, and also create a vicious geo-political environment that would provide incentives for both sides to mobilize nuclear weapons first.
The authors also warn that a pre-emptive strike may not destroy enough Pakistani nuclear weapons on the ground, leaving Indian defence systems vulnerable to a retaliatory nuclear attack from Pakistan. As such, though tensions are running high in the aftermath of the Pulwama attack, there is need for caution in determining the way forward. Any escalation of tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours can have massive implications for both South Asian and global security.
|
|
February 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
India, politics international, South Korea, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
‘Things will turn NASTY’ Belarus leader issues warning after collapse of nuclear treaty https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1090969/belarus-news-inf-treaty-world-war-3-russia-v-usa-nato
RUSSIA and Belarus will consider a joint military response if the US deploys weapons in Europe after pulling out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
By SIMON OSBORNE, Feb 22, 2019 Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said he fears “things will turn nasty” should the US decision spark a new arms race at a time of increasing global tensions. The US and Soviet Union signed the INF treaty in 1987 in an historic move that effectively removed nuclear weapons from Europe and signalled the beginning of the end of the Cold War.
But Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the accord after accusing Russia of committing repeated violations and Mr Lukashenko fears the security of Belarus could be compromised as a result.
He said: “It is a catastrophe, particularly for us.
“I am afraid the Americans will grab the fleeting opportunity and deploy the missiles in Europe after breaking the treaty. “If they do, things will turn nasty for us, too. Because together with Russia, we will have to think of reciprocal measures.”
He continued: “It would be unavoidable if this happened. It would be even worse if, God forbid, missiles were deployed in Ukraine.
“This is why I am wholeheartedly against dissolving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
“We pursue a peace-loving policy. We don’t need scuffles between major powers, from which, judging from history, we’ve always suffered.
“This is why we don’t need this slaughter, this fight, particularly now around the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.”
Mr Lukashenko said he believes NATO is keen to deploy missiles in Europe.
He said: “It seems to me that although NATO claims they are not going to deploy these missiles in Europe, they are running a bluff.
“Otherwise, why would they withdraw? Why did they have to destroy this treaty?
“They should have come to terms with China and make it part of the treaty if China was the focus of it.”
February 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Belarus, politics international, Russia, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula begins with a peace declaration, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, By David Kim, February 14, 2019 During his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump
announced that he will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un at the end of the month to continue a “historic push” for peace on the Korean Peninsula. If one statement stood out from Trump on North Korea, it’s that “much work remains to be done” to achieve complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.
Last year’s summit in Singapore between Trump and Kim was historic not for what it achieved on denuclearization, but for what it signaled to the world: Both countries, through the top-down, personality-driven diplomacy of their leaders, are ready to transform their relationship by seeking permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula. The central question moving forward isn’t whether Kim is willing to give up his nuclear weapons; rather it’s whether the United States and North Korea can transform their relationship to a point where Kim and his elites begin to believe their regime can survive without nuclear weapons. More than any other measure, an end-of-war declaration between the two countries would represent the beginning of this transformation. As the State Department’s special representative for North Korea, Stephen Beigun, said in a speechat Stanford University, “President Trump is ready to end this war. It is over. It is done.” Both sides appear ready to make that statement a reality.
Denuclearization is a long-term goal. While some Trump administration officials have suggested otherwise, complete denuclearization isn’t a realistic short- or medium-term goal. After the Singapore summit, President Trump tweeted that North Korea no longer poses a “nuclear threat.” In fact, experts believe that tweet is a decade or more away from being true. It now seems that Trump may have adjusted his views on this point. In a recent tweet, Trump said he looks forward to “advancing the cause of peace” at the next summit in Vietnam, suggesting he accepts that peace and a new relationship should undergird any real denuclearization agreement with North Korea.
Trump should understand that by agreeing to a peace declaration with the North, he won’t necessarily speed up the denuclearization timeline; rather, he’d be laying the foundation for a formal peace regime, an institutional set-up to allow both the United States and North Korea to work toward that goal. At Stanford, Biegun said the United States is prepared to take parallel steps with North Korea by “simultaneously look[ing] for ways to advance a more stable and peaceful, and ultimately, a more legal peace regime on the Korean Peninsula,” one that can “advance denuclearization.” This is a much more subtle formulation than the previous all-or-nothing approach taken by many US policymakers, the idea that North Korea had to abandon all its weapons first before the United States took any steps such as sanctions relief.
Kim wants an end to the Korean War. Ever since the days of Kim’s grandfather Kim Il Sung’s regime, North Korea has sought a formal peace regime ending the Korean War. The country has repeatedly raised its strong desire for an end-of-war declaration as the next step towards permanent peace. A report on the regime’s state-run news agency, for instance, stated last year “that the issue of the end-of-war declaration should have been resolved a half a century ago.” Trump appears to agree. He reportedly told Kim in Singapore that he’d sign a declaration. Such a peace declaration may serve as a preliminary security guarantee, or litmus test, to see how serious Kim is about denuclearizing.
Unlike a formal peace treaty, an end-of-war declaration, or peace declaration, is a legally non-binding instrument. Getting to a declaration won’t involve difficult negotiations. The document, rather, would represent a symbolic end to a war that has actually been over since 1953. Without abandoning the goal of a peace treaty, Trump could use a declaration to signal to Kim that the United States is serious about negotiating with his regime. As some experts also point out, an end-of-war declaration could be a “game changer” for North Korea because it could help “neutralize the hardliners” within Kim’s regime, creating the breathing space to allow further progress towards denuclearization. It would also counteract the frequent propaganda narrative in North Korea of foreign encroachment………. https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/denuclearization-of-the-korean-peninsula-begins-with-a-peace-declaration/?utm_source=Bulletin%20Newsletter&utm_medium=iContact%20email&utm_campaign=PeaceDeclaration_02152019
February 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international, South Korea |
Leave a comment
The Rift Between the U.S. and Europe Brings Nuclear Risks, TIME, By SIMON SHUSTER/MUNICH February 21, 2019
“…………The loss of trust between the U.S. and Europe was especially palpable at this year’s Munich summit, a traditional show of mutual reassurance among NATO allies. In her speech to the summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel complained that the U.S. decision to scrap the INF treaty was made without consulting Europe, even though the treaty concerns Europe’s security most of all. “We sit there in the middle with the result,” Merkel said. Minutes later, when Vice President Mike Pence delivered a greeting from his boss, President Donald Trump, the room full of European diplomats responded with stony silence.
Their chief concern at the summit, at least when it comes to nuclear security, was the U.S. move in May to pull out of the deal with Iran. That deal took nearly a decade to negotiate, and it committed the Islamic Republic in 2015 to halt its nuclear-weapons program. Yet despite U.S. intelligence agencies reporting the deal was working, the Trump Administration scrapped it, imposing new sanctions against Iran and pressuring European allies to do the same. Germany, France and the U.K. have so far refused. ……
February 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
EUROPE, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Closing nuclear facility on table as US-NKorea summit nears, BY ERIC TALMADGE News and Observer, ASSOCIATED PRESS, FEBRUARY 22, 2019 TOKYO
The future of a key North Korean nuclear facility is on the table as leader Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump prepare to meet in Vietnam next week.
The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center, the heart of the North’s nuclear development and research, is Kim’s biggest carrot as he tries to win security guarantees and free his country from the U.S.-backed trade sanctions that are hobbling its economy.
The North Korean leader has suggested he’s ready to talk about closing the facility, capping the amount of fissile material it produces or possibly allowing international inspections. Trump, meanwhile, says he is going into the summit in no hurry to push the North to denuclearize, as long as Kim isn’t conducting nuclear or missile tests.
But time may be of the essence.
As talks drag on, North Korea is believed to have produced enough weapons-grade nuclear fuel to make an estimated half a dozen or so more bombs in 2018 alone.
Here’s the latest on what’s going on at Yongbyon and why it’s so important:
HEDGED BETS
The North has taken steps to disable or dismantle some nuclear and missile facilities since the first Trump-Kim summit last June in Singapore but it has also been hedging its bets.
Using open-source satellite imagery of the Yongbyon complex, a team of experts led by Siegfried Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory who has visited the Yongbyon facility several times, estimate the North made enough weapons-grade material to boost its stockpile from an estimated 30 nuclear weapons at the end of 2017 to 35-37 by the end of last year.
“North Korea unsurprisingly continued to operate and, in some cases, expand the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure,” they wrote in a report published this month by the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation.
The authors note that Kim isn’t violating any agreements with Trump or shocking any military strategists by building up the North’s stockpile — that’s to be expected in an arms negotiation process. But the stepped up activity underscores how important it is for Washington to push for a deal on Yongbyon……..https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article226619924.html
February 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international, USA, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Zarif decries ‘US hypocrisy’ over planned nuclear sale to Saudis
Neither human rights or a burgeoning nuclear programme are a real concern for the US, Iran’s foreign minister 
says. Aljazeera, 21 Feb 19, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the US of hypocrisy for allegedly attempting to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia while Washington tries to wreck Iran’s nuclear programme.
Zarif’s comment on Twitter on Wednesday came after reports the administration of President Donald Trump is trying to bypass US Congress to advance the sale of nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia.
“Day by day it becomes clearer to the world what was always clear to us: neither human rights nor a nuclear program have been the real concern of the US,” Zarif wrote.
“First a dismembered journalist; now illicit sale of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia fully expose #USHypocrisy,” Zarif added, referring to the killing of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi agents, and the new report by a US congressional committee on the planned technology sale. …….
Mohammad Ali Shabani, Iran Pulse Editor at Al-Monitor, said he doubted the US would sell uranium-enrichment technology to Saudi Arabia and, therefore, Riyadh would not have the capability to develop a nuclear weapon.
“However, the sidestepping of America’s own laws to facilitate sales of nuclear power plants puts the Trump administration’s broader credibility under question,” Shabani told Al Jazeera.
‘Terrorist attack’
Tensions between Washington and Tehran – bitter foes since Iran’s 1979 revolution – have intensified since Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal, under which it scaled back its uranium enrichment programme and promised not to pursue nuclear weapons.
In exchange for the deal signed in 2015 in Vienna with six world powers – the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union – international sanctions were lifted allowing Iran to sell its oil and gas worldwide.
Trump reimposed sanctions with the aim of slashing Iranian oil sales and choking its economy in order to curb its ballistic missile programme and activities in the Middle East, especially in the conflicts in Syria and Yemen.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday Iran-US relations are at a new low and sanctions imposed by the Trump administration targeting Tehran’s oil and banking sectors amounted to “a terrorist attack”.
“The struggle between Iran and America is currently at a maximum. America has employed all its power against us,” Rouhani was quoted as saying in a cabinet meeting by the state broadcaster IRIB.
“The US pressures on firms and banks to halt business with Iran is 100 percent a terrorist act,” he said.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly confirmed Tehran has been meeting its nuclear commitments fully.
‘Khashoggi cover-up’
The Trump administration has faced additional congressional opposition due to concerns about the role of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi……. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/zarif-decries-hypocrisy-planned-nuclear-sale-saudis-190220100506949.html
February 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Iran, politics international, Saudi Arabia, USA |
Leave a comment
U.K. Nuclear and Military Exporters Told to Prepare for Hard Brexit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-20/u-k-nuclear-military-exporters-told-to-ready-for-hard-brexit, By Jonathan Tirone, February 21, 2019,
U.K. makers of nuclear material, weapons and sensitive technologies are being urged by the government to get new export licenses to prepare for a no-deal exit from the European Union.
Companies need to register and to obtain permission under the U.K.’s new “Open General Export License” to continue exporting so-called dual use goods to the EU from March 29, according to a statement from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Licenses for dual use items “will not be valid” if the U.K. crashes out of the bloc without a deal. Existing licences issued in the U.K. for the export of so-called Trigger Listitems — which have already been subject to assessment — will remain valid .
BAE Systems Plc and Urenco Ltd. are among U.K. companies that would be most directly impacted by a no-deal Brexit. Thousands of items ranging from computer software and digital converters to fuel cells and robotic arms face trade restrictions without new paperwork.
The U.K. also warned this week that new restrictions could be imposed on shipments of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste under a no-deal scenario. Just as banks have made London a global financial hub, its ties to the EU’s nuclear industry has helped turn the U.K. into a central cog servicing the world’s flow of atomic materials.
February 21, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, politics international, UK |
Leave a comment
US will not open door to Saudi Arabia building nuclear
weapons, deputy energy secretary says CNBC David Reid| 17 Feb 2019
- The Trump administration wants to sell its nuclear energy technology to cash-rich Saudi Arabia.
- To prevent nuclear arms development, the U.S. wants to place tight controls on how the technology can be used.
- Saudi Arabia has put the U.S. on a shortlist with China, Russia and others to bid for nuclear power projects in the country.
“………….The Saudis have so far refused to rule out their right to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, pointing to neighboring Iran’s ability to do so under the 2015 nuclear agreement that world powers struck with Tehran.
In an interview in March on CBS’s “60 Minutes” Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said the country wasn’t interested in developing weapons but would develop nuclear capability should Iran ever develop a working nuclear bomb.
On Sunday, Saudi Arabian Prince Turki Al-Faisal responded directly to Brouillette’s words, saying the country had more options than just U.S. technology.
“Well the nuclear energy market is open. It is not just the United States that is providing nuclear technology,” he told CNBC’s Hadley Gamble in Munich.
“We have France, we have Russia, we have China. We have our friends in Pakistan and in other places as well, so if they want to remove themselves from that market, well, that’s up to them.” https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/16/brouillette-us-wont-give-saudi-arabia-key-to-nuclear-weapon-building.html
February 18, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, Saudi Arabia, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
|
Kim Ready to Accept Nuclear-Plant Inspections, South Korea Says, Bloomberg, By Youkyung Lee, February 16, 2019,
· South Korea presidential adviser sees Trump path to compromise
· Trump says ‘I’m in no rush for speed’ in talks with Kim regime
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was ready to accept the dismantlement and inspection of a high-profile nuclear plant, a South Korean presidential adviser said, suggesting a possible point of compromise in upcoming talks with President Donald Trump.
Moon Chung-in, a special adviser for foreign affairs and national security, said in an interview Friday that the verified destruction of the regime’s Yongbyon nuclear complex was an achievable goal during Trump’s planned Feb. 27-28 summit with Kim. Moon said it was his “understanding” that South Korean President Moon Jae-in got Kim’s personal assurance on that when they met in Pyongyang in September.
………..Moon Chung-in said the U.S. should agree to allow economic projects between the two Koreas to proceed in exchange for inspections of Yongbyon — something the U.S. has so far been reluctant to do. Kim has railed against the international sanctions regime choking his moribund economy and called for resuming the projects, including a industrial park and a mountain resort.
“Those will be doable,” Moon Chung-in said. Such an exchange would advance talks, “without undermining the overall sanctions regime by the UN Security Council, yet giving some kind of incentives to North Korea in a way the U.S. can come up with some sort of compromise,” he said.
Moon Chung-in, a strong advocate of South Korea rapprochement with North Korea, said the success of the Hanoi summit hinges on how North Korea proceeds with its nuclear arms program. Satellite-imagery analysis and leaked American intelligence suggest that North Korea has been churning out rockets and warheads as quickly as ever.
If North Korea continues to produce nuclear materials even after the Hanoi summit, I would say that’s the most important indicator that the Hanoi summit failed,” Moon Chung-in said. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-15/kim-ready-to-accept-inspection-of-nuclear-plant-adviser-says
|
|
February 16, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international, South Korea |
Leave a comment
UK’s reliance on China’s nuclear tech poses test for policymakers, Britain risks alienating Beijing if it scraps power deals over security concerns, Ft.com, 15 Feb 19,
The UK has no easy way to block China’s ambitions to export nuclear reactor technology to Britain on security grounds, despite growing public anxiety about Chinese involvement in sensitive infrastructure, according to people familiar with the situation. The government’s willingness to permit the state-owned utility, CGN, to participate in the UK’s nuclear power generation programme has raised eyebrows in recent months as Chinese investment has come under hostile scrutiny, both in Europe and the US.
In October, an assistant US secretary of state, Christopher Ashley Ford, even warned the UK explicitly against partnering with CGN, saying that Washington had evidence that the business was engaged in taking civilian technology and converting it to military uses. More recently, concerns about the Chinese telecoms company Huawei and cyber security have also prompted calls for the government to back away from closer energy ties. But government policies requiring nuclear projects to be “developer-led”, and interlocking commitments given to Chinese investors by David Cameron’s government in 2014, make it awkward for the government to reverse course………..
Is Chinese involvement really a problem? Opposition to the deal ranges from the strategic to the practical. Economist Dieter Helm said he finds it astonishing that an independent nuclear military power should be “complacent about allowing potential enemies into the core of its nuclear technologies”. Some critics also worry about the availability of fuel and spares in what will be a 60-year plant should Britain and China fall out………..
The bigger risk to CGN’s ambitions may be the UK’s waning appetite for more nuclear reactors, and the lack of competitive tension among developers in seeking new deals. A report last summer from the National Infrastructure Commission warned against “rushing” to support more nuclear stations and suggesting only one more be agreed before 2025, preferring to place bigger bets on renewable energy.
The government has been lobbied by EDF to consider a new form of financing for nuclear, known as the regulated asset base model, which would impose a charge on consumers during the construction phase, helping to reduce the project’s cost of capital, and potentially unlocking private sector investment. This could make the highly geared French group less dependent on Chinese capital to proceed with Sizewell C. According to one civil servant, the business department, BEIS, is considering these proposals “very seriously”.
In the meantime, CGN, which declined to comment on its UK operations, continues to invest heavily in the UK. The total is £2.7bn and counting on Hinkley, the design assessment for the Bradwell reactor and 340 megawatts of renewables plant. According to a source close to CGN: “This is an important year and it is important to remember that the company is a utility, not a bank.” “The Chinese see this UK deal as a strategic imperative and seem intent to do what it takes to make it happen,” said the consultant. “If the UK has changed its mind, it is going to be hard to let them down gently.” https://www.ft.com/content/7734e3be-2f6f-11e9-8744-e7016697f225
February 16, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
China, politics international, safety, UK |
Leave a comment
Endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 10, 1996, the treaty nearly gained universal adherence, with 184 states having signed and 168 having ratified. However, it has not yet entered into force.
After ratifying the treaty, Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa said the country’s ratification was a sign of the changing times. “Zimbabwe has now today deposited its instruments for ratification after a period of 20 years.”
Mnangagwa said the decision was made due to a new dispensation in the country. “The environment is different and we think it is proper that Zimbabwe sides with those 167 other nations who have ratified against nuclear proliferation.”
Zimbabwe’s ratification was an important milestone, said Lassina Zerbo, executive secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization.
“Zimbabwe is an important country in Africa. Like what the president said, it is a new time, new era. Things are moving, and Zimbabwe is showing to the international community that things are changing,” he said.
Zimbabwe was also the 46th African state to ratify the treaty. Countries on the continent that are yet to ratify the treaty include the Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, the Gambia and Sao Tome and Principe, while Mauritius, Somalia and South Sudan are yet to sign the treaty.
February 16, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AFRICA, politics international, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Central to the meeting in Vietnam is what the U.S. might offer Kim in return for concrete steps to relinquish his nuclear arsenal, WSJ, By Andrew Jeong andTimothy W. Martin, Feb. 8, 2019 SEOUL—The U.S. special envoy for North Korea concluded three days of nuclear-disarmament talks in Pyongyang ahead of the second summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, scheduled for this month in Vietnam, expressing confidence that “real progress” was possible if both sides remain committed…….
(subscribers only)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-envoy-voices-optimism-ahead-of-north-korea-nuclear-summit-11549684347
February 11, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
North Korea, politics international, USA |
Leave a comment
Russia says open to new nuclear pact https://www.sbs.com.au/news/russia-says-open-to-new-nuclear-pact
Russia is open to considering new proposals for a broader treaty including other countries to replace a suspended Cold War-era nuclear pact with the US. Russia says it would be prepared to consider new proposals from the United States to replace a suspended Cold War-era nuclear pact with a broader treaty that includes more countries.Russia suspended the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty at the weekend after Washington announced it would withdraw in six months unless Russia ends what it says are violations of the pact, allegations rejected by Moscow.
The 1987 treaty eliminated the medium-range missile arsenals of the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, but leaves other countries free to produce and deploy them.
US President Donald Trump last week said he would like to hold talks aimed at creating a new arms control treaty.
“We of course saw the reference in president Trump’s statement to the possibility of a new treaty that could be signed in a beautiful room and that this treaty should also include other countries as its participants,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday.
“We look forward to this proposal being made concrete and put on paper or by other means…” Ryabkov said at a news conference in Moscow.
Ryabkov said the US had not sent Moscow any concrete proposals for a new pact.
|
|
|
February 9, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics international, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Climate change is the overlooked driver of Central American migration, https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-02-06/climate-change-overlooked-driver-central-american-migration, Living on Earth. February 06, 2019 Adam Wernick As people from Guatemala and Honduras continue to seek sanctuary in the US for a variety of reasons, including violence and poverty, another factor driving their migration has gotten much less attention: climate disruption.Many members of the migrant “caravans” that made headlines during the 2018 US midterm elections are fleeing a massive drought that has lasted for five years.
The drought has hit harder in some places than in others, says John Sutter, senior investigative reporter for CNN, who went to rural Honduras to report on climate change and immigration. In the area of Central America known as the “dry corridor,” for example, drought is not uncommon. But, Sutter says, some of the climate scientists he spoke with say they are seeing unprecedented effects.
“In particular, spring rains, which are incredibly important for corn crops — a staple in this region — just haven’t been coming,” Sutter reports. “They’re almost completely missing when you look at the average rainfall by the month. It’s partly that rains have decreased; it’s partly that they’ve shifted and are no longer falling in the seasons when they have been so useful to farmers in the past. But it’s been very troubling and created a lot of hardship.”
Many people who live in the dry corridor of Central America are subsistence farmers, completely reliant on what they grow for their survival. Unlike in the US and parts of Europe, there is no crop insurance or other programs to tide farmers over in bad years. Often, there are no irrigation systems, either. So, if the rains don’t fall, crops simply don’t grow.
“If you have one bad year and the rains don’t fall, that creates a certain stress,” Sutter says. “If you have year after year after year — and, at this point, essentially five years of very bad drought conditions — then that’s when conditions can lead to hunger and starvation.”
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says 2 million people in the region are at risk for hunger, Sutter points out.
“I think that’s [something] people underestimate about the caravan, or any migration story, really, when you hear about it: It has to be really bad for you to want to flee a problem,” Sutter says. “There’s an incredible attachment to a sense of home and place, especially among people who are farmers, who are attached to the land. It’s a big deal to think about leaving. That gives you a hint at how intense the situation is for many farmers.”
While President Donald Trump claims that caravans of migrants heading from Central America to the US are an “invasion” of “gang members and very bad people,” his own commissioner of the US Customs and Border Protection says that crop failure is one of the main drivers of migration.
“Migration stories are always complex,” Sutter says. “It’s not untrue that violence is driving people out; it’s not untrue that poverty is driving people out. But it is also true that climate change and severe drought are causing people to move from Central America, and from other [regions]. And I think that we have to look at that in a clear-eyed way and think about what that means.”
He adds: “I wish the administration, or really anyone in Washington, would talk about this issue of migration in terms of climate change, because the projections for how many climate migrants or climate refugees there will be in the world are uncertain, and we’re not preparing for that.”
If anything, Sutter says, the United States and some European countries are doing the opposite. They are putting up walls and barriers and trying to slow the movement of people — fully knowing that climate change is going to push people out their homes.
The United States has done more than any other country to cause global warming, while many of the people suffering from the worst effects of this warming have done little, if anything, to cause it, Sutter points out.
“I think it’s a really important moral question we need to ask ourselves: We’re causing this hardship in parts of the world many of us may never travel through or see, but it’s real and it’s causing repercussions, one of which is that people are on the move to try to make ends meet, to try to make a livelihood,” Sutter says. “It doesn’t invalidate the other stories that we’ve heard about the caravan, but it certainly complicates them.”
Many climate experts believe the big, industrialized countries — the US, Europe, China — owe it to these people to tell this part of the story to the world.
This article is based on an interview that aired on PRI’s Living on Earth with Steve Curwood.
February 7, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
climate change, politics international |
2 Comments
