nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Russia’s state-owned energy company Rosatom is drumming up new nuclear business in Africa

 As the sabre-rattling over possible sanctions against Russia’s nuclear
industry intensifies, the country’s state-owned energy company Rosatom is
busily drumming up new business in Africa.

Last month, speaking at the
African Energy Indaba in Cape Town, Rosatom’s chief executive for central
and southern Africa, Ryan Collyer, urged the continent’s most
industrialised country, South Africa, to press go on its nuclear programme
to ensure “stable, affordable and environmentally friendly” power. It
was a message that resonated with South Africa’s energy minister Gwede
Mantashe, who said the country, which has been battling electricity
blackouts for the past 16 years, expects nuclear energy to be part of the
fix.

“The proposal to develop 2,500MW of nuclear power is not a dream —
there’s already an agreement, and the procurement capacity is being
worked on. We’re going to be investing in that capacity,” he told the
conference. While nuclear power provides about 10 per cent of electricity
generated globally, according to the Paris-based International Energy
Agency, the Koeberg plant in Cape Town is the only nuclear power station on
the African continent. Yet a number of African countries have announced
plans to build nuclear power plants in the past year — including Uganda,
Rwanda and Kenya.

 FT 2nd April 2024

https://www.ft.com/content/4f1d0d1d-3a98-4b03-8771-54d88ed0a023

April 4, 2024 Posted by | AFRICA, business and costs, politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

The Case for Nuclear Diplomacy

COMMENT. In this lengthy article about treaties – why no mention of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) ?

Trend Research, 04 Apr 2024, Gina Bou Serhal, Senior researcher/ Strategic Studies Section

Due to the heightened danger of the potential use of nuclear weapons – a precarious biproduct of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the fear of nuclear war has surged to its highest levels since the era of the Cold War. Concerns over a wider conflict loom with the possibility of drawing in NATO countries – some of which possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, US backing for Ukraine’s war effort has further strained its relations with Russia, raising concerns that Cold War deterrence strategies, which shaped their relationship for decades, may be less effective in today’s geopolitical landscape.

As nuclear weapons proliferated throughout the Cold War, the stark reality of potential annihilation spurred the US and the Soviet Union to embark on a new era of negotiation, seeking innovative approaches to manage their deep-seated ideological and strategic rivalries.  The risk of escalation and potential for nuclear conflict compelled the US and the Soviet Union to explore alternative methods of engagement, including holding regular summits with top leadership, resulting in opening direct lines of communication.

Arms control negotiations, including the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT I in 1967 and SALT II in 1972), limited the number of nuclear missiles in their respective arsenals by setting limits on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and limited anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. Such an agreement helped prevent an unconstrained arms race, reduced the risk of miscalculation, and were considered trust-building measures geared toward de-escalating tensions. More importantly, these conducive interactions laid the groundwork for future cooperation, including the landmark 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which eliminated an entire class of intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

These types of treaties are not perfect; they are typically non-binding, and are far from a guarantee in ensuring nuclear non-proliferation.  Enforcement challenges and non-compliance by some nations remain. A lack of transparency also creates challenges and increases the level of distrust among nations. Furthermore, the rise of non-state actors and heightened terrorist activity globally intensify the chilling possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands, increasing the risk of a conflict spiraling out of control.

Such dangers underscore the urgent need for continued non-proliferation efforts, even amidst deep mistrust and rising tensions among major nuclear powers, particularly the permanent members of the UN Security Council. In today’s precarious global security environment, effective nuclear diplomacy remains a critical tool to navigate the complex geopolitical landscape and prevent nuclear catastrophe. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Why do states pursue nuclear weapons?

As we navigate an era of heightened geopolitical uncertainty and intensifying competition between major powers, a crucial question emerges: does the Cold War logic of nuclear deterrence still hold true? This reasoning, often referred to as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), suggests that nuclear-armed states with similar capabilities are unlikely to attack each other for fear of devastating retaliation. According to this logic, nuclear weapons can prevent large-scale war and promote stability. International Relations realist scholar Kenneth Waltz who famously stated “those who like peace should love nuclear weapons,” believes this rationale explains the relative peace during the Cold War.

There remain two overarching arguments as to why states may look to obtain nuclear weapons, despite their obvious potential for mass destruction – not to mention the economic and political baggage. First, nuclear weapons are seen as the ultimate guarantor of security. No nuclear-armed state has ever faced a full-scale conventional war with another nuclear power (except for India and Pakistan, who have fought several wars over Kashmir). This historical trend fuels the perception that nuclear weapons provide a shield against existential threats. Secondly, nuclear weapons carry a powerful symbolic weight. Possession elevates a state’s international standing and prestige. It is no coincidence that all five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the most powerful decision-making body in the world, are nuclear-armed nations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Challenges to global non-proliferation efforts: treaty withdrawals

The Cold War fostered a tense environment where both the US and the Soviet Union rapidly developed nuclear weapons. This arms race gave rise to the concept of nuclear deterrence – a defense strategy that relies on the premise that nuclear powers will never launch a full-scale nuclear attack because such a conflict would be devastating for both sides.[16] To mitigate the risk of accidental escalation and limit the number of nuclear-armed nations, treaties became a crucial tool for managing this precarious new global reality.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty………………………………………………………………

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty…………………………………………

The New START Treaty……………………………………………

………………………………………….Inaction on nuclear diplomacy can lead to a dangerous cascade of consequences. At one extreme lies nuclear proliferation, potentially culminating in a devastating war. However, a more likely scenario is the normalization of performative nuclear threats and brinkmanship by the international community. This passive approach to nuclear saber-rattling increases the risk of miscalculation. Leaders desensitized to such threats might underestimate their seriousness, potentially leading to the erosion of deterrence – the concept that has prevented nuclear war for over 70 years. https://trendsresearch.org/insight/the-case-for-nuclear-diplomacy/

April 4, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

UKRAINIAN WAR PEACE TALKS: To Be or Not To Be?

Russian and Eurasian Politics by GORDONHAHN, April 2, 2024

Despite Western media reports over recent months and weeks regarding supposed secret talks between Westerners and Russians to settle or at least stop the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War, there are no such talks ongoing. But this does not mean that they cannot emerge.

First we heard of supposedly secret talks between Ukrainian Armed Forces General Staff Chief Gen. Valeriy Zaluzhniy and Russian General Staff Chief Gen. Valerii Gerasimov. Then there were Russian President Vladimir Putin’s alleged ‘signals’ indicating that he seeks negotiations. In reality, there are no peace talks underway between Russia, on the one hand, and the West and/or Ukraine, on the other hand. There are no signals that Putin is seeking negotiations. Although he is willing to hold talks, he expects that any negotiations be requested first by the West and/or Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy. The New York Times piece about ‘Putin’s signals’ published just before Christmas was nothing more than another attempt to portray Russia and Putin as ‘losing the war’ and desperate for an exit ramp, and it was nothing less than a contribution in support of US President Joseph Biden’s desperate re-election prospects as the American presidential campaign is about to kickoff.

Nothing could be further from the truth than the tale of Russian desperation told since the war began. This is most evident now for anyone following the recent course of events on the front; a front that is collapsing on the Ukrainian side. In Zelenskiy’s eternal PR mode, the Ukrainian front’s collapse will be framed as an orderly retreat to new defense lines and part of a new defensive strategy replacing the offensive one that so ignominiously failed with this summer’s predictably disastrous counteroffensive. Nevertheless, the hard, cold realities of the summer campaign’s defeat following the fall of the strategic hub of Bakhmut (Artyomevsk) and preceding the fall of the heavily fortified town of Avdiivka (Avdeevka) are trumping Zelenskiy’s simulated reality productions both in the West and Ukraine ever so gradually.  

As Russian forces slowly but but surely advance westward across the entire front ranging from Zaporozhe (and perhaps soon Kherson) to Kharkov — an advance that is likely to accelerate in spring and summer, the Kremlin has no burning need to negotiate. To be sure, Moscow would prefer ending the war, but on its own terms. The longer Washington, Brussels, and Kiev refuse negotiations, the more fluid the situation becomes and the less likely Moscow will be easy to negotiate with before its forces reach the Dnieper River. Some Russian officials are trumpeting a hard line. For example, a month ago Russian ambassador to the UN Dmitri Polyanskiy said that Kiev’s chance for talks had passed and now only capitulation talks are possible (https://t.me/RusskajaIdea/5265 and https://t.me/Slavyangrad/79622).

But Putin appears open to talks. However, he certainly is not desperate for them and may prefer holding off until more Ukrainian military force and territory is attritted. He has indicated numerous times since the war began that he is open to talks…………………..

The lack of talks is best explained by the West’s and Ukraine’s unwillingness to negotiate. In fact, since December 2022 Ukrainian law forbids Ukrainians from conducting peace talks with Putin’s Russia. The U.S. has apparently held to its proclaimed policy of ‘no talks about Ukraine without Ukraine’ at least in terms of any peace negotiations, though the US’s CIA chief, William Burns, and his Russian counterpart, SVR chief Sergei Narynskii met a few months back for discussions on undisclosed issues.

Therefore, Zelenskiy consistently rejects talks until such time as Russia has withdrawn all of its troops beyond Ukraine’s 1991 borders—the core of his supposed ‘peace plan.’ Obviously, without defeat on the battlefield Russia will not give up Crimea and the four oblasts it now considers to be its sovereign territory. Recently, Zelenskiy rejected negotiations out of hand. Several weeks ago, visiting Turkey, Zelenskiy spurned Turkish President Tayyip Recep Erdogan’s entreaties to start talks with Moscow under Ankara’s mediation………………………………………………………………………….  https://gordonhahn.com/2024/04/02/ukrainian-war-peace-talks-to-be-or-not-to-be/—

April 4, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Xi Jinping’s Thoughts on China’s Nuclear Weapons

Xi noted the increased readiness those new silos might provide was necessary to prepare to respond to foreign military intervention. That sounds more defensive than aggressive. ……………….. China’s long-standing commitment not to use nuclear weapons first at any time or under any circumstances.

UCS is concerned about the future direction of Chinese nuclear weapons policy. We agree with Gen. Cotton that “the PRC’s long-term nuclear strategy and requirements remain unclear.” We urge influential US voices, including the media, to refrain from encouraging the public, and especially US decision-makers, to jump to conclusions the available evidence does not support. We also urge the Biden administration, and the US Congress, to wait until they have a clearer understanding of Chinese nuclear thinking before making precipitous decisions about the future of the US nuclear arsenal. 

April 1, 2024, Gregory Kulacki, China Project Manager, This blog was co-authored with UCS China analyst Robert Rust. https://blog.ucsusa.org/gregory-kulacki/xi-jinpings-thoughts-on-chinas-nuclear-weapons/

Last month UCS published a critique of a New York Times article that claimed Chinese military strategists, “are looking to nuclear weapons as not only a defensive shield, but as a potential sword — to intimidate and subjugate adversaries.” We examined the evidence and found it did not support that claim. 

However, there was one piece of evidence in the article we could not examine; a speech by Chinese leader Xi Jinping to China’s Second Artillery in December of 2012. It operates China’s conventional and nuclear missiles and was renamed the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force in 2016. We’ve since obtained a copy of that speech and found it doesn’t support the New York Times claim either. There is no language in Xi’s speech that suggests he thinks about the purpose of China’s nuclear arsenal differently than his predecessors. 

We posted the original Chinese text with an English translation. It is classified as an “internal publication” that should be “handled with care.” It was printed and distributed to all Chinese military officers at the regimental level and above by the General Political Department of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in February 2014.

Why is this speech worth reading?

UCS first learned about the speech ten years ago when a Chinese colleague drew our attention to language in a commentary on the speech by generals Wei Fenghe and Zhang Haiyang, the commander and party secretary of the Second Artillery at the time. Our colleague noticed it contained new language describing the alert level of Chinese missiles. He thought the two officers might be trying to influence Xi’s thinking. UCS took note of that the new language in our 2016 report on a possible change in China’s nuclear posture. 

That report concluded China may shift some of its nuclear forces to what is called a “launch on warning” or “launch under attack” alert status that would give Chinese leaders the option to launch those nuclear missiles quickly before they could be destroyed by an incoming attack. Traditionally, China kept its nuclear missile force off-alert, and the Second Artillery trained to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike only after being struck first. Currently, China is believed to keep most of its nuclear warheads in storage, separated from the missiles that carry them, to prevent an accidental or unauthorized launch.

Although China may still be moving to a launch on warning posture, the full text of Xi’s December 2012 speech, and the phrase it contains related to alert levels, reveals Xi did not discuss nuclear strategy or announce an intention to put Chinese nuclear forces on alert. He addresses more general concerns about the combat readiness, ideological orientation, and human qualities of Chinese military officers. Every Chinese head of state since 1842, when the United Kingdom defeated Imperial China in the Opium War, shared the same concerns.  Xi did not say anything new, specific, or surprising. There is no language in his speech that justifies the suggestion he communicated aggressive new nuclear ambitions that day.

What did Xi say?

Continue reading →

April 3, 2024 Posted by | China, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Einstein’s vision for peace

    By Lawrence S. Wittner  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/31/einsteins-vision-for-peace/

Aghast at the use of nuclear weapons, he threw himself into efforts to prevent worldwide nuclear annihilation

Although the popular new Netflix film, Einstein and the Bomb, purports to tell the story of the great physicist’s relationship to nuclear weapons, it ignores his vital role in rallying the world against nuclear catastrophe.

Aghast at the use of nuclear weapons in August 1945 to obliterate the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein threw himself into efforts to prevent worldwide nuclear annihilation.  In September, responding to a letter from Robert Hutchins, Chancellor of the University of Chicago, about nuclear weapons, Einstein contended that, “as long as nations demand unrestricted sovereignty, we shall undoubtedly be faced with still bigger wars, fought with bigger and technologically more advanced weapons.”  Thus, “the most important task of intellectuals is to make this clear to the general public and to emphasize over and over again the need to establish a well-organized world government.” 

Four days later, he made the same point to an interviewer, insisting that “the only salvation for civilization and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law.”

Determined to prevent nuclear war, Einstein repeatedly hammered away at the need to replace international anarchy with a federation of nations operating under international law.  In October 1945, together with other prominent Americans (among them Senator J. William Fulbright, Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, and novelist Thomas Mann), Einstein called for a “Federal Constitution of the World.” 

That November, he returned to this theme in an interview published in the Atlantic Monthly.  “The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem,” he said.  “It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one. . . .  As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable.”  And war, sooner or later, would become nuclear war.

Given Einstein’s fame and his well-publicized efforts to avert a nuclear holocaust, in May 1946 he became chair of the newly-formed Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, a fundraising and policymaking arm for the atomic scientists’ movement.  In the Committee’s first fund appeal, Einstein warned that “the unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

Even so, despite the fact that Einstein, like most members of the early atomic scientists’ movement, saw world government as the best recipe for survival in the nuclear age, there seemed good reason to consider shorter-range objectives.  After all, the Cold War was emerging and nations were beginning to formulate nuclear policies.  An early Atomic Scientists of Chicago statement, prepared by Eugene Rabinowitch, editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, underscored practical considerations. 

“Since world government is unlikely to be achieved within the short time available before the atomic armaments race will lead to an acute danger of armed conflict,” it noted, “the establishment of international controls must be considered as a problem of immediate urgency.”  Consequently, the movement increasingly worked in support of specific nuclear arms control and disarmament measures.

In the context of the heightening Cold War, however, taking even limited steps forward proved impossible.  The Russian government sharply rejected the Baruch Plan for international control of atomic energy and, instead, developed its own atomic arsenal.  In turn, U.S. President Harry Truman, in February 1950, announced his decision to develop a hydrogen bomb―a weapon a thousand times as powerful as its predecessor. 

Naturally, the atomic scientists were deeply disturbed by this lurch toward disaster.  Appearing on television, Einstein called once more for the creation of a “supra-national” government as the only “way out of the impasse.”  Until then, he declared, “annihilation beckons.”

Despite the dashing of his hopes for postwar action to end the nuclear menace, Einstein lent his support over the following years to peace, nuclear disarmament, and world government projects.

The most important of these ventures occurred in 1955, when Bertrand Russell, like Einstein, a proponent of world federation, conceived the idea of issuing a public statement by a small group of the world’s most eminent scientists about the existential peril nuclear weapons brought to modern war. Asked by Russell for his support, Einstein was delighted to sign the statement and did so in one of his last actions before his death that April. 

In July, Russell presented the statement to a large meeting in London, packed with representatives of the mass communications media.  In the shadow of the Bomb, it read, “we have to learn to think in a new way. . . .  Shall we . . . choose death because we cannot forget our quarrels?  We appeal as human beings to human beings:  Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

This Russell-Einstein Manifesto, as it became known, helped trigger a remarkable worldwide uprising against nuclear weapons in the late 1950s and early 1960s, culminating in the world’s first significant nuclear arms control measures.  Furthermore, in later years, it inspired legions of activists and world leaders.  Among them was the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev, whose “new thinking,” modeled on the Manifesto, brought a dramatic end to the Cold War and fostered substantial nuclear disarmament.

The Manifesto thus provided an appropriate conclusion to Einstein’s unremitting campaign to save the world from nuclear destruction.

Lawrence S. Wittner is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

April 2, 2024 Posted by | history, media, politics international | Leave a comment

Japan confirms experts met in China to ease concerns over discharge of treated radioactive water

Japan said Sunday its experts have held talks with their Chinese
counterparts to try to assuage Beijing´s concerns over the discharge of
treated radioactive wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant into the sea. The discharges have been opposed by fishing
groups and neighboring countries especially China, which banned all imports
of Japanese seafood. China´s move has largely affected Japanese scallop
growers and exporters to China. During the talks held Saturday in the
northeastern Chinese city of Dalian, Japanese officials provided
“science-based” explanation of how the discharges have been safely carried
out as planned, according to the Japanese Foreign Ministry.

 Daily Mail 31st March 2024

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-13257021/Japan-confirms-experts-met-China-ease-concerns-discharge-treated-radioactive-water.html

April 2, 2024 Posted by | China, Japan, oceans, politics international, wastes | Leave a comment

IAEA Warns Of Iraq-Like Scenario For Iran Without Transparency

 The UN nuclear watchdog cautions that without improved transparency on
Iran’s nuclear program, it cannot assure its peaceful nature, echoing fears
of repercussions akin to the Iraq War. In a Friday interview with PBS,
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano
Grossi expressed concern over Iran’s advancements in its nuclear program
alongside restrictions placed on IAEA monitoring activities. Grossi
emphasized that without full Iranian cooperation, the agency cannot verify
that its program is peaceful. The lack of visibility would be a major
setback, similar to the situation during the late 1980s and 90s in Iraq.

 Iran International 30th March 2024

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202403300067

April 1, 2024 Posted by | politics international | Leave a comment

New NATO member Finland admits US pact ‘restricts sovereignty’

The DCA gives the American military access to 15 bases in Finland and allows the deployment of military equipment and supplies on Finnish territory, as well as the free movement of US aircraft, ships, and vehicles. Members of the US military and the facilities they use would also get special legal protections.

29 Mar 2024  https://www.sott.net/article/490230-New-NATO-member-admits-US-pact-restricts-sovereignty

A military agreement with Washington comes at a cost, Helsinki has acknowledged

A new military cooperation deal agreed with Washington will limit Helsinki’s sovereignty, the Finnish Foreign Ministry said on Thursday, advising that its ratification will therefore require a two-thirds majority in the parliament.

Finland joined NATO in April 2023, abandoning a decades-long policy of neutrality. It began negotiating a Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with the US almost immediately, and signed it last December.

A working group led by the Foreign Ministry was set up to draft the ratification protocols which were formally sent to the country’s parliament for comments on Thursday, the ministry announced.

“The working group concludes that the DCA would restrict Finland’s sovereignty, which is why Parliament’s acceptance of the agreement would require a two-thirds majority of the votes cast,” the ministry press release said. The parliament has until May 12 to comment on the draft proposal.

The DCA gives the American military access to 15 bases in Finland and allows the deployment of military equipment and supplies on Finnish territory, as well as the free movement of US aircraft, ships, and vehicles. Members of the US military and the facilities they use would also get special legal protections.

When the DCA was signed, Finnish Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen said it was “a guarantee from the world’s largest military power that they will defend us.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded by saying that Helsinki previously enjoyed cordial relations with Moscow and had no disputes, territorial or otherwise, but chose to side with the US-led bloc anyway.

“There was no trouble. Now there will be,” Putin said in December. “We will now create the Leningrad Military District and concentrate certain military units there.”

Comment: As has happened before, the step from EU to NATO was a matter of time. The Finnish government managed to sell the concept of joining NATO, next is to improve on the level of subjugation, let the US do more of what it wants within Finland, thus moving from being a mere vassal to becoming a more fully occupied state. Finland is not alone, somewhat similar agreements have been concluded between the US and the other Nordic countries.

March 30, 2024 Posted by | Finland, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

UN Security Council ceasefire resolution a turning point in Gaza war

March 26, 2024, by: The AIM Network, m https://theaimn.com/un-security-council-ceasefire-resolution-a-turning-point-in-gaza-war/

Australian Council for International Development Media Release

Australia’s peak body for international humanitarian organisations welcomes the United Nations Security Council’s resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and release of all hostages as a crucial turning point in the war.

Australian Council for International Development (ACFID) CEO Marc Purcell said it marked a significant breakthrough despite the United States’ decision to abstain from voting.

“This passage of this binding resolution, following four failed attempts since the start of the war, shows global leaders are no longer willing to accept the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, many of them children, as collateral,” he said.

“The US’ decision to abstain is disappointing, particularly since it put forward its own failed proposal for a ceasefire just days ago. It is essential the US use its influence and relationship with Israel to obtain a permanent ceasefire.

“We are hopeful the passage of this resolution overnight marks a crucial turning point in the war that has killed nearly 32,000 civilians through bombing, starvation and dehydration.

“It is vital that both the state of Israel and militant groups immediately lay down arms to allow for the passage of humanitarian assistance, which is still being blocked from entry into Gaza, and the release of all hostages.”

ACFID is urging the Australian government to commit additional and ongoing funding for the humanitarian response in Gaza and the West bank, including for Australian non-government organisations providing lifesaving assistance.

March 26, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

Karma: After US vetoes 3 good UN ceasefire resolutions, its bad ceasefire resolution vetoed

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL , 24 Mar 24

The US watered down ceasefire resolution in Gaza failed to pass when the UN Security Council vetoed it. China, Russia and Algeria all cast vetoes compared to America’s lone veto in 3 previous non US sponsored ceasefire resolutions.

Why ‘watered down’?

It does not demand immediate ceasefire, just that ceasefire is “imperative.” It would require continued negotiations as promoted by the US designed to ensure Israeli priorities but none of the Palestinians. Nor is it permanent, with the implication that ethnic cleansing of Palestinians can continue if and when remaining hostages are released.

Furthermore, the resolution expresses no demand against, just “concern” that the impending Israeli invasion of Rafah, will cause major harm to the 1.5 million refugees sheltered there. But that’s meaningless happy talk when Netanyahu proclaims he’s ready to launch that grotesque invasion with or without US support.  

So the UN is back to Square One in the effort to end Israeli’s destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, , supported and enabled by their partner in genocide, America.

March 26, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

A special (nuclear) relationship

 Recent US policies have pursued “usable” nukes, for deployment in an increasing range of scenarios, with a bottomless pit of funding available for nuclear modernisation. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.


It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.

By Kate Hudson   https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/24/a-special-nuclear-relationship/

A little known US-UK nuclear weapons agreement is up for renewal. It needs to end instead.

The “special relationship” is a longstanding refrain in British politics, used to justify so much that’s bad in UK foreign policy choices.

I recall in 2002 when Tony Blair agreed Britain had to pay a “blood price” to secure its special relationship with the US. We all know how that ended up. 

But it wasn’t Blair who paid the blood price – it was 179 British service personnel, killed in an illegal war, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and countless more injured, displaced and traumatised.

Much that feeds war can be notched up to the US/UK special relationship, but it goes far beyond providing diplomatic and military cover and assistance to US enterprises. 

That relationship is also responsible for the development of the UK’s nuclear arsenal and its continued possession of these weapons of mass destruction. 

The special nuclear relationship is facilitated by the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA) – the world’s most extensive nuclear sharing agreement. 

Even though it comes up for renewal in parliament every ten years, few seem to know of its existence.  

Neither do many know the extent to which it makes us dependent on the US – or indeed that it underpins the wider relationship between the US and UK.

Nuclear weapons

Its full name is the “Agreement between the UK and the USA for cooperation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes”.

The agreement initially enabled both countries to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems.

But at the start, the MDA prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons. However, an amendment in 1959 allowed for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment between both countries up to a certain deadline.

This amendment is extended through a renewal of the treaty every ten years, most recently in 2014 without any parliamentary debate or vote.

The British public and parliamentarians initially found out about that extension and ratification when President Obama informed the US Congress. The next renewal is due in parliament later this year, and we are determined that this time it will not go unchallenged.

Renewing such agreements on the nod, without transparency or accountability is never a good thing. When it ties us so tightly to nuclear cooperation with the White House, at a time of increasing nuclear risk, this is an even greater cause for concern.

Usable nukes

Recent US policies have pursued “usable” nukes, for deployment in an increasing range of scenarios, with a bottomless pit of funding available for nuclear modernisation. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.

It also puts us at odds with our commitments under the international Non-Proliferation Treaty, which seeks to stem the spread of nuclear technology.

The relationship and activities which are enshrined by the MDA confirms an indefinite commitment by the US and UK to collaborate on nuclear weapons technology and violates both countries’ obligations as signatories to the NPT.

The NPT states that countries should undertake “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament”. Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating to further advance their respective nuclear arsenals.

Indeed, a 2004 legal advice paper by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin concluded that it is “strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”.

This was so since it implies “continuation and indeed enhancement of the nuclear programme, not progress towards its discontinuation”.

Independent foreign policy

It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.

The UK government’s claim that its submarine-based Trident nuclear weapons system is independent is false. It is technically and politically dependent on the US, largely due to the MDA.

Due to the MDA, the UK relies on the US for many aspects of Trident. The UK’s nuclear warhead is a copy of the US one, with some components directly bought from the US.

With the UK’s warheads expected to be non-operational by the late 2030s, a decision on their replacement will be intrinsically linked to the work taking place as part of the MDA.

The UK leases from the US the Trident II D5 missiles it uses and British submarines must regularly visit the US base in Kings Bay, Georgia, for the maintenance and replacement of these missiles.

By having such direct involvement in Britain’s nuclear weapons technology, the US exercises significant leverage over the UK’s foreign and defence policy.

Even the most establishment characters must now be able to see that unquestioning allegiance to the US is out of the question.

So with the MDA coming up for renewal again, now is the time to start asking the questions, raising the protest, and making the case for independence.

It’s time for the special nuclear relationship to end. CND will be ensuring that the issue is raised vigorously within parliament, and calling on all our supporters to lobby their elected representatives to that effect.

Kate Hudson is General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the UK

March 25, 2024 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel announces latest major land grab in West Bank

24 Mar 2024,  https://www.sott.net/article/490068-Israel-announces-latest-major-land-grab-in-West-Bank

A senior minister has vowed to continue backing the settlement movement, which is illegal under international law

The Israeli government has designated nearly 2,000 acres in the West Bank as state-owned land, in a move described by rights groups as the biggest land grab on occupied Palestinian territories in decades.

The expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank is illegal under international law. In 2016, the UN Security Council described them as “a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security.”

Nevertheless, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich argued that the declaration of state-owned land in the Jordan Valley on Friday was “an important and strategic issue.”

While there are those in Israel and the world who seek to undermine our right to Judea and Samaria and the country in general, we promote the settlement movement with hard work and in a strategic manner across the country,” Smotrich said in a statement, as quoted by the Times of Israel.

According to local media, the designation of plots of land as Israeli paves a way for the construction of settler houses, as well as for commercial development.

Israeli settlement watchdog Peace Now described the declaration as the largest since the 1993 Oslo Accords, adding that “the year 2024 marks a peak in the extent of declarations of state land.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government gave the green light to the construction of more than 3,400 new settler homes this month, drawing more criticism from the UN and the Palestinian Authority.

“The West Bank is already in crisis. Yet, settler violence and settlement-related violations have reached shocking new levels, and risk eliminating any practical possibility of establishing a viable Palestinian State,” UN human rights chief Volker Turk said in his report to the Security Council on March 8.

Smotrich said in February that the expansion of settlements was a legitimate response to Palestinian terrorist attacks. “Our enemies know that any harm to us will lead to more construction and more development and more of our hold all over the country,” he wrote on X (formerly Twitter)

Comment. It’s not like Israel hasn’t made its goal plain for years.
Gaza is also being carved up

March 25, 2024 Posted by | Israel, politics international | Leave a comment

Dozens of countries pledge support for nuclear power, despite lingering concerns.

By Justine Calma, a senior science reporter covering climate change, clean energy, and environmental justice with more than a decade of experience. She is also the host of Hell or High Water: When Disaster Hits Home, a podcast from Vox Media and Audible Originals.  https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/22/24108679/nuclear-energy-summit-pledge-30-countries

More than 30 countries have pledged to pursue nuclear energy as one way to meet global climate goals. Even so, nuclear energy is still a controversial energy source that’s bogged down by concerns about radioactive waste, safety, and high costs.

At a nuclear energy summit in Brussels yesterday, the countries pledged “to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy by taking measures such as enabling conditions to support and competitively finance the lifetime extension of existing nuclear reactors, the construction of new nuclear power plants and the early deployment of advanced reactors,” The Associated Press reports. The US, China, Japan, France, Britain, and Saudi Arabia were among the 34 countries to sign the pledge.

It’s a bold statement to support a source of energy over which many governments and environmental groups are deeply divided. Nuclear energy doesn’t generate the greenhouse gas emissions heating up the planet, but the environmental footprint of its supply chain and waste creates other problems. And after decades of missteps, the technology still has to prove whether it can be an affordable, safe alternative to the fossil fuels causing climate change.

Nearly every nation on Earth has committed to fighting climate change as part of the Paris agreement. That requires a transition from fossil fuels to clean energy over the next few decades. Fortunately, renewables like solar and wind energy are already cheaper than coal and gas and are forecast to make up a majority of new electricity sources deployed in coming years. The challenge is in finding backup energy sources for times when winds die down and the sun sets.

Proponents of nuclear energy say it’s the perfect complement to renewables since nuclear reactors are able to generate electricity around the clock. “Nuclear energy is indispensable along with renewable energy …  We must devise strategy to attract further investment which is necessary to enhance the use of nuclear energy,” Japan’s Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Komura Masahiro said during the Nuclear Energy Summit held yesterday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It’s a remarkable turnaround from fears stoked more than a decade ago when an earthquake and tsunami triggered a catastrophic meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan. In December, Japan was one of more than 20 countries that agreed to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2050. The country still plans to prioritize renewable energy, Masahiro said, and “at the same time, Japan will continuously reflect upon the lessons from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station and ensure that the use of nuclear power places safety as its top priority.”

There’s still skepticism over whether a nuclear renaissance is a good idea. Existing reactors and the radioactive waste they produce still pose risks. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi has tried to broker agreements between Russia and Ukraine to prevent a meltdown at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant amid the ongoing war. In the US, tribes and environmental advocates have fought to stop a resurgence of uranium mining that has a legacy of polluting water sources in the past.

At the summit, John Podesta, US senior adviser to the president for clean energy innovation and implementation, touted the construction of the country’s first completely new power plant in decades. The Vogtle Unit 3 reactor in Georgia finally started operating last year, no less than $17 billion over budget after seven years of delays.

Next-generation nuclear reactors are supposed to be easier and cheaper to build. But they haven’t overcome the radioactive waste problem. They’ll require more highly enriched uranium, of which Russia has been the largest supplier. And a key demonstration project using advanced small modular reactors in Utah was canceled in November after costs soared.

Protesters with the environmental group Greenpeace attempted to block roads leading to the Nuclear Energy Summit yesterday, claiming they were able to delay the arrival of some delegates.

“All the evidence shows that nuclear power is too slow to build, too expensive, and it remains highly polluting and dangerous,” Greenpeace EU senior campaigner Lorelei Limousin said. “We are in a climate emergency, so time is precious, and the governments here today are wasting it with nuclear energy fairy tales.”

March 24, 2024 Posted by | politics international | 1 Comment

UN Chief: Nuclear Risk Highest in Decades, Calls for Disarmament

The United Nations.  https://www.miragenews.com/un-chief-nuclear-risk-highest-in-decades-calls-1197216/–– 18 Mar 24

Almost 80 years after the incineration of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons still represent a clear and present danger to global peace and security, UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council on Monday.

Calling for disarmament now, he urged States with nuclear arsenals to lead the way across six areas for action that include dialogue and accountability.

“Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons ever invented, capable of eliminating all life on earth. Today, these weapons are growing in power, range and stealth. An accidental launch is one mistake, one miscalculation, one rash act away,” he warned.

Doomsday Clock ticking loudly

The meeting on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was convened by Japan, Security Council president for March and, as Mr. Guterres noted, the only country that knows better than any other “the brutal cost of nuclear carnage.”

It was being held at a time “when geopolitical tensions and mistrust have escalated the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades.”

He said the Doomsday Clock – the symbol for humanity’s proximity to self-destruction – “is ticking loudly enough for all to hear”.

Meanwhile, academics and civil society groups, to Pope Francis, youth, and the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, known as Hibakusha, have been clamouring for peace and an end to the existential threat.

No ‘Oppenheimer’ sequel

Even the Oscar-winning Hollywood film Oppenheimer “brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world,” he said, adding that “humanity cannot survive a sequel”.

Despite these appeals for the world to step back from the brink, “States possessing nuclear weapons are absent from the table of dialogue,” he said, while “investments in the tools of war are outstripping investments in the tools of peace.”

Mr. Guterres stressed that disarmament is the only path to “vanquish this senseless and suicidal shadow, once and for all.”

Dialogue and confidence-building

He appealed to States armed with nuclear weapons to take the lead in six areas, starting with re-engaging in dialogue to develop transparency and confidence-building measures to prevent any use of a nuclear weapon.

“Second, nuclear saber-rattling must stop,” he said. “Threats to use nuclear weapons in any capacity are unacceptable.”

Nuclear weapon States must also re-affirm moratoria on nuclear testing, which includes pledging to avoid actions that would undermine the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), whose entry-into-force must be priority.

From commitment to action

Furthermore, disarmament commitments must become action, together with accountability, under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The landmark accord, signed more than 50 years ago, is the only binding commitment to the goal of disarmament by States which officially stockpile nuclear weapons. 

The Secretary-General also highlighted the need for a joint first-use agreement. “Nuclear weapon States must urgently agree that none of them will be the first to use nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, none should use them in any circumstances,” he said.

Reducing stockpiles

Finally, he called for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons. In this regard, he urged the United States and Russia – the world’s largest nuclear weapons holders – to take the lead and also find a way back to negotiations towards the full implementation of the New START Treaty and agree on its successor.

Mr. Guterres also pointed to the responsibility of non-nuclear weapon States to fulfil their own non-proliferation obligations and to support disarmament efforts.

He said the Security Council also has a leadership role, including “to look beyond today’s divisions, and state clearly that living with the existential threat of nuclear weapons is unacceptable.”

March 20, 2024 Posted by | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A chance to break the nuclear links – Kate Hudson, CND

,
 https://labouroutlook.org/2024/03/17/a-chance-to-break-the-nuclear-links-kate-hudson-cnd/

“It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.”

By Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)


Whoever is in the White House after the upcoming presidential election, one thing is clear: Britain has to break its ‘special nuclear relationship’ with the US. We’re all familiar with the so-called ‘special relationship’, basically tying Britain into really bad foreign policy decisions. But not so many people know about the US-UK Mutual Defence
Agreement (MDA) – the world’s most extensive nuclear sharing agreement.

Known in full as the ‘Agreement between the UK and the USA for cooperation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes’, the treaty initially established an agreement between both countries to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems.

At the start, the MDA prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons, but an amendment in 1959 allowed for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment between both countries up to a certain deadline.


This amendment is extended through a renewal of the treaty every ten years, most recently in2014 – without any parliamentary debate or vote. The British public and parliamentarians initially found out about that extension and ratification when President Obama informed the United States Congress.

Renewing such agreements on the nod, without transparency or accountability, is never a good thing. When it ties us so tightly to nuclear cooperation with the White House this is an even greater cause for concern. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.

It also puts us at odds with our commitments under the NPT: the MDA confirms an indefinite commitment by the US and UK to collaborate on nuclear weapons technology and violates both countries’ obligations as signatories to the NPT. The NPT states that countries should undertake ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament’.


Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating on further advancing their nuclear arsenals. Indeed, a 2004 legal advice paper by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin concluded that it is ‘strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’, as it implies ‘continuation and indeed enhancement of thenuclear programme, not progress towards its discontinuation’.

On every level the MDA must be challenged. It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme. When the US seems hell-bent on taking us into war after war, unquestioning allegiance from the UK cannot continue.

The MDA is up for renewal again this year. Now is the time to start asking the questions, raising the protest,and making the case for independence. It’s time for the special nuclear relationship to end. Watch this space!

March 20, 2024 Posted by | politics international, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »